Re: MI: reporting of multiple breakpoints

[Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>]

It's really frustrating that this is so hard to explain.

Yes, it is likely that the exception PC for a watchpoint exception
points after the store, not at it.

And it certainly is always true that you want to resume after the
store, not on it.

However, the issue isn't the value of PC at the exception.

The issue is: what user watch/break is reported, and what line is
reported?

My argument is: if the hardware permits you to know the PC of the
store, then you can do a BETTER job helping the user, by translating
the address of the store, NOT the exception PC, back into a line
number.  That way, you will tell the user that execution stopped at a
source line that does a store, rather than a source line that does
something entirely different.

If the hardware allows this, why do anything less?

   paul