From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-21100-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 31544 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2005 14:09:46 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 31484 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2005 14:09:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2005 14:09:40 -0000
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian))
	id 1DHMrZ-0008In-BY; Fri, 01 Apr 2005 09:11:05 -0500
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:09:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: GDB <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [mi] watchpoint-scope exec async command
Message-ID: <20050401141105.GB29152@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
	GDB <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
References: <20050329013634.GB6373@nevyn.them.org> <20050329024945.GC3957@white> <20050329020123.GA7266@nevyn.them.org> <01c534a6$Blat.v2.4$944e44a0@zahav.net.il> <20050329214414.GA3498@nevyn.them.org> <01c53564$Blat.v2.4$1da3c140@zahav.net.il> <20050331014749.GA264@white> <01c535ab$Blat.v2.4$c21baac0@zahav.net.il> <20050331205826.GA1590@white> <01c5369a$Blat.v2.4$2f0a6100@zahav.net.il>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <01c5369a$Blat.v2.4$2f0a6100@zahav.net.il>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2

On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 11:06:05AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:58:26 -0500
> > From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> > Cc: GDB <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
> > 
> > I do have another question though. If GDB has another mecanism to
> > determine when hardware watchpoints go out of scope, why does it add the
> > scope watchpoint at all?
> 
> I think that the scope breakpoint was introduced when software
> watchpoints were coded.  Software watchpoints do need the scope
> breakpoint, and as you demonstrated, there's no problem in that case.
> That is why I think we should simply not use the scope breakpoint for
> hardware watchpoints.

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...

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC