From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: GDB <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [mi] watchpoint-scope exec async command
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 09:54:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <01c53769$Blat.v2.4$83bfb540@zahav.net.il> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050401141105.GB29152@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:11:05 -0500)
> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:11:05 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: GDB <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
>
> Actually, I don't think software watchpoints need it at all. A
> software watchpoint is implemented primarily by single-stepping the
> inferior, right? Well, after every single-step we know whether or not
> the breakpoint is still in scope...
That's true, but running the code that checks whether the watchpoint
is still in scope after each instruction would slow down GDB even
more, while the scope breakpoint doesn't add any slowdown.
Of course, this is all based on speculative arguments, at least from
my side, so it could be 100% wrong. If someone who reads this knows
for a fact why scope breakpoints were introduced, please speak up.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-04-02 9:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-03-25 16:12 Bob Rossi
2005-03-25 16:25 ` gdbserver question james osburn
2005-03-25 16:33 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-03-26 13:27 ` [mi] watchpoint-scope exec async command Eli Zaretskii
2005-03-26 13:44 ` Bob Rossi
2005-03-27 14:10 ` Bob Rossi
2005-03-28 21:57 ` Bob Rossi
2005-03-28 22:40 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-03-28 22:54 ` Bob Rossi
2005-03-28 22:59 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-03-29 0:43 ` Bob Rossi
2005-03-29 1:35 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-03-29 1:51 ` Bob Rossi
2005-03-29 2:00 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-03-29 21:33 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-03-29 21:39 ` Mark Kettenis
2005-03-29 21:47 ` Bob Rossi
2005-03-30 5:15 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-03-29 21:43 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-03-30 20:10 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-03-31 0:49 ` Bob Rossi
2005-03-31 4:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-03-31 19:59 ` Bob Rossi
2005-04-01 8:10 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-04-01 14:09 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-04-02 9:54 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2005-04-06 2:13 ` Bob Rossi
2005-04-06 3:51 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-03-31 2:32 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-03-31 4:48 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-03-31 6:00 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-03-31 19:49 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-03-29 23:29 ` Bob Rossi
2005-03-30 5:12 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-03-30 0:29 ` Bob Rossi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='01c53769$Blat.v2.4$83bfb540@zahav.net.il' \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox