From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4482 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2002 05:46:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4475 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2002 05:46:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO is.elta.co.il) (199.203.121.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Sep 2002 05:46:53 -0000 Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA25768; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 07:43:59 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:46:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz@is To: Andrew Cagney cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc;rfa:breakpoint] Pass full breakpoint/watchpoint count to target In-Reply-To: <3D97C8A8.1040902@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00745.txt.bz2 On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote: > The attached patch changes the target vector so that a count of each > type of hardware watchpoint/breakpoint is passed to the > target_can_use_hardware_breakpoints() function. (Anyone got a better > name for the function?). > > This lets targets make a better guess at how many watchpoints are going > to be needed. Sorry, I don't see the large-scale picture: how will this facility be used in routine GDB operations by the application-level GDB code? Also, on a i386, for example, if you don't pass the size and alignment of each address to be watched, the guess of the amount of required resources can be very wrong. This is even more exacerbated due to debug register sharing implemented for i386. > The intent is for the Z? packet to pass these totals down > to the target. Do you mean to say this is only for remote targets?