From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26357 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2002 10:40:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26349 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2002 10:40:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO www.lampret.com) (193.189.173.98) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Oct 2002 10:40:19 -0000 Received: from vili ([212.118.94.130]) by www.lampret.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9FDcHF09036; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:38:18 -0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Marko Mlinar To: Daniel Jacobowitz , David Carlton Subject: Re: PATCH for Re: mips-elf build fails Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 03:40:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.1 Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20021014204759.GA10876@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20021014204759.GA10876@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200210151239.38777.markom@opencores.org> X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00121.txt.bz2 > > Well, to be specific, the line is > > > > if (HAVE_NONSTEPPABLE_WATCHPOINT && STOPPED_BY_WATCHPOINT (ecs->ws)) > > > > So it seems reasonable to assume that it's some sort of interation > > between mips-elf and these patches: > > > > 2002-10-10 Marko Mlinar > > > > * infrun.c (resume): Convert #ifdef HAVE_NONSTEPPABLE_WATCHPOINT into = C, > > accidentially not commited 2002-10-09 > > * gdbarch.h, gdbarch.c: Re-generate. > > > > 2002-10-09 Marko Mlinar > > > > * infrun.c (resume): Convert #ifdef HAVE_NONSTEPPABLE_WATCHPOINT into = C. > > * gdbarch.sh (HAVE_NONSTEPPABLE_WATCHPOINT): Add. > > * gdbarch.h, gdbarch.c: Re-generate. > > > > In other words, I think it's HAVE_NONSTEPPABLE_WATCHPOINT rather than > > STOPPED_BY_WATCHPOINT that's the problem. > > You're right. > > Marko, when you do something like this it is vital that you check > existing definitions of the macro. It's defined to an empty string in > a number of header files, which is fine for #ifdef. I've check this in > to fix the build failures. thanks for fixing it. I have quite some TODO list with these kind of changes in order to put our= =20 target in. Since I do not want to cause more trouble I would like to ask=20 somebody to help me with the global changes. Apparently you will have less= =20 work this way anyway :) The next step should be: ----- >> > #define STEP_SKIPS_DELAY_P (1) >> > #define STEP_SKIPS_DELAY(pc) (or1k_step_skips_delay (pc)) >=20 > what needs to be defined instead? They need to be added to gdbarch.{sh,h,c}. That's a separate change.=20 See my post. For this, look at one of the ``F:'' (predicate) methods -=20 DO_REGISTERS_INFO. ----- Any volounteers? :) Marko