From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5050 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2006 18:38:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 5041 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2006 18:38:26 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sadr.equallogic.com (HELO sadr.equallogic.com) (66.155.203.134) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:38:25 +0000 Received: from sadr.equallogic.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sadr.equallogic.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k1JIcNTW012785 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:38:23 -0500 Received: from M31.equallogic.com (M31.equallogic.com [172.16.1.31]) by sadr.equallogic.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id k1JIcMGF012780; Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:38:22 -0500 Received: from PKONING.equallogic.com ([172.16.3.66]) by M31.equallogic.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:38:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17400.47897.765000.695598@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:54:00 -0000 From: Paul Koning To: drow@false.org Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: MI: reporting of multiple breakpoints References: <20060217194426.GA28988@nevyn.them.org> <17398.11182.747232.774924@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20060217200712.GB30145@nevyn.them.org> <17398.12047.624911.347942@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20060217202047.GC30881@nevyn.them.org> <17398.15554.431196.208031@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20060217211942.GA609@nevyn.them.org> <17400.46121.875000.537237@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20060219182038.GB19352@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00253.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: Daniel> On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 01:08:41PM -0500, Paul Koning wrote: >> My point is that, at least on some of the platforms, a watchpoint >> exception will deliver the PC of the instruction doing the store, >> or that PC can be deduced. Therefore, on such platforms, that is >> the PC that should be reported, which will make the report point >> to the right source line. Of course, the resume will not resume >> there, but GDB already has machinery for that. Daniel> I've got no idea what you mean by "GDB already has machinery Daniel> for that". Want to clarify? I'm referring to various target macros (don't remember the names) that control whether the PC needs to be advanced before you continue from a stop. I remember using some of those when I implemented watchpoint support on our MIPS platform. Daniel> We present a source location based on the current frame, Daniel> which is a PC derived from the current register values. What Daniel> you see is what you get when you continue. Ok, my point is that we can do better. Your point (previous message) is that you don't think what I'm suggesting is better. I guess we'll just disagree on that. I prefer to tell users a store happened in a source line that contains an assignment, rather than a source line that doesn't. The fact that some hardware can't do that doesn't alter that -- we don't and shouldn't just offer lowest common denominator. paul