From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13871 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2005 21:47:58 -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 13849 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2005 21:47:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao04.cox.net) (68.230.240.35) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Mar 2005 21:47:54 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050329214754.VSZN11124.lakermmtao04.cox.net@white>; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:47:54 -0500 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1DGPTr-0001VJ-00; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:46:39 -0500 Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:47:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Mark Kettenis Cc: eliz@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [mi] watchpoint-scope exec async command Message-ID: <20050329224639.GA5446@white> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , eliz@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20050328225619.GB3413@white> <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> <200503292139.j2TLdikB018517@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200503292139.j2TLdikB018517@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00290.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:39:44PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:29:48 +0200 > From: "Eli Zaretskii" > > Bob, could you also try the same program with a software watchpoint, > and see if you hit the same bug or not? If the behavior is different, > please show where the GDB execution thread goes a different way and > how it avoids the crash. (Forcing software watchpoints might not be > easy. One way, on a x86 machine, is to watch a region that is more > than 16 bytes long. Another way is to build a hacked version of GDB > that uses only software watchpoints.) > > How about "set can-use-hw-watchpoints 0"? ;-) Seriously, thanks! I was just digesting that paragraph. Bob Rossi