From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23011 invoked by alias); 7 Jul 2006 15:08:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 22905 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jul 2006 15:08:48 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 15:08:47 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-198-224.inter.net.il [83.130.198.224]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id FDH43064 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:08:43 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 15:08:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Wu Zhou , gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060707131754.GB20201@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Fri, 7 Jul 2006 09:17:54 -0400) Subject: Re: [ppc-linux-nat]: set access flag for h/w watchpoint even if it is only read or write Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060707003521.worrm140yso4g8s8@imap.linux.ibm.com> <20060707131754.GB20201@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-07/txt/msg00057.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 09:17:54 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: Wu Zhou , gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > Daniel, could you please point me to Ulrich's change, either in > > ChangeLogs or in the sources? I cannot find it forf some reason. > > I must be mistaken; our S/390 support doesn't have any read watchpoints > (I don't know if the architecture does or not). In fact I can't find > any architecture that does this. But I immediately recognized > the description of the problem... so it must have happened somewhere. You are not dreaming, because I remember that as well. Perhaps Ulrich just suggested a change, but it wasn't accepted eventually. > I can't find the discussion of it, but the gdbserver crisv32 port does > the same thing: > > /* Read watchpoints are set as access watchpoints, because of GDB's > inability to deal with pure read watchpoints. */ > if (type == '3') > type = '4'; > > Here's some more about it: > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2005-11/msg00231.html > > In which I also claimed S/390 did it, which doesn't appear to be true, > but at least I've had the same misconception for a while now. Thanks for the pointers. I think if we wish to change this, someone will need to step forward and volunteer to submit a clean design of how a back end could tell breakpoint.c that read watchpoints are really supported, and how breakpoint.c could use that info to DTRT.