From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6803 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2009 15:09:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 6791 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Dec 2009 15:09:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-yw0-f177.google.com (HELO mail-yw0-f177.google.com) (209.85.211.177) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:09:47 +0000 Received: by ywh7 with SMTP id 7so5117692ywh.24 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 07:09:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.28.5 with SMTP id b5mr9564978ybb.232.1261321786057; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 07:09:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20091220131521.GH2788@adacore.com> References: <200912161847.17162.sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20091220131521.GH2788@adacore.com> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Durigan_J=FAnior?= Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support the new PPC476 processor To: Joel Brobecker Cc: "S?rgio Durigan J?nior" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Thiago Jung Bauermann , Luis Machado , Matt Tyrlik Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg00284.txt.bz2 Hi Joel, On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Joel Brobecker wr= ote: > I did a quick pass over the patch that you sent, and I pretty much > agree with the comments made by Eli. =A0My general comment, is that > the patch is too big for me to really digest as is (3,000 lines in > total!)- maybe it's just me being preoccupied with some many things > going on at the same time. =A0If you'd like to help me review your change= s, > I suggest we take a different approach than the one you took to present > these patches: I'd like to have a set of independent patches that impleme= nt > each feature independently (that way, I don't have to try to determine > which feature each hunk applies to). We don't have to have them all, > in fact, I'd feel less overwhelmed if we started with just one feature. > For instance, we could look at hardware-accelerated watchpoint conds. > We could look at watchpoint ranges, but we are still discussing the user > interface... I am sorry about that. When I sent the patch, I decided to use the same approach that I used for the catch syscall series, but apparently it wasn't a good idea. I will see what I can do in order to get the patches divided the way you want; I don't think it will be hard to accomplish that. Thiago is probably going to resubmit the patches, since I'm not working at IBM anymore (that's the reason why I haven't replied to Eli's messages, by the way). > One stylistic comment is that I'm having a hard time with the use of > "point" to mean either breakpoint or watchpoint. I wonder if we could > find something else, but nothing really comes to mind. I am tempted > to say that watchpoints are really data breakpoints while breakpoints > are instruction breakpoints (this is how some documents that I read > called watchpoints: data breakpoints), but perhaps using breakpoint > in this case is going to just be too confusing in the GDB context. > Hmmmm.... When I decided to use this term, I based that decision on the fact that gdbserver uses the same nomenclature: for example, it has a variable called `debug_hw_points', the methods `insert_point' and `remove_point', etc. But of course, if you think this term is confusing, we should be able to find a better one :-). Thank you for the pre-review! S=E9rgio.