From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-21081-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 27784 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2005 04:43:04 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 27757 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2005 04:42:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 31 Mar 2005 04:42:57 -0000
Received: from zaretski (IGLD-80-230-68-88.inter.net.il [80.230.68.88])
	by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR)
	with ESMTP id EAY54598 (AUTH halo1);
	Thu, 31 Mar 2005 06:42:51 +0200 (IST)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 04:43:00 -0000
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: GDB <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <01c535ab$Blat.v2.4$c21baac0@zahav.net.il>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
In-reply-to: <20050331014749.GA264@white> (message from Bob Rossi on Wed, 30
	Mar 2005 20:47:49 -0500)
Subject: Re: [mi] watchpoint-scope exec async command
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <20050328224101.GA629@nevyn.them.org> <20050328235310.GA3699@white> <20050328230048.GA1697@nevyn.them.org> <20050329014203.GB3801@white> <20050329013634.GB6373@nevyn.them.org> <20050329024945.GC3957@white> <20050329020123.GA7266@nevyn.them.org> <01c534a6$Blat.v2.4$944e44a0@zahav.net.il> <20050329214414.GA3498@nevyn.them.org> <01c53564$Blat.v2.4$1da3c140@zahav.net.il> <20050331014749.GA264@white>
X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00308.txt.bz2

> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:47:49 -0500
> From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> Cc: GDB <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
> 
> The first approach seems good, I was just wondering if that would
> slow things down? Aren't hardware watchpoints must faster than
> software?

With hardware watchpoints. the inferior runs at its normal speed.  So
how would it slow down things if we leave the watchpoint in place in
that case?

> If desired, I'd be interested in looking into either of these 2 fixes.
> However, I'll need a small amount of hand holding, so it might be faster
> for someone else to do it ...

If no one does, feel free to ask questions.

> Funny you ask. When using hardware watchpoints, both rwatch and awatch
> result in the same bad behavior. However, when using software
> watchpoints,
> 
> (gdb) rwatch param
> Expression cannot be implemented with read/access watchpoint.
> (gdb) awatch param
> Expression cannot be implemented with read/access watchpoint.
> (gdb) watch param
> Watchpoint 2: param
> (gdb) 
> 
> both rwatch and awatch are refused by GDB.

rwatch and awatch can only be set with hardware assistance, so the
refusal is expected.