From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26553 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2005 02:13:16 -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 25468 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2005 02:13:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao06.cox.net) (68.230.240.33) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Apr 2005 02:13:06 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050406021258.BXHF21504.lakermmtao06.cox.net@white>; Tue, 5 Apr 2005 22:12:58 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1DJ02N-0002SO-00; Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:12:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 02:13:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: GDB Subject: Re: [mi] watchpoint-scope exec async command Message-ID: <20050406021259.GB9146@white> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , GDB References: <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$2f0a6100@zahav.net.il> <20050401141105.GB29152@nevyn.them.org> <01c53769$Blat.v2.4$83bfb540@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c53769$Blat.v2.4$83bfb540@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00038.txt.bz2 On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 12:50:14PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:11:05 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Cc: GDB > > > > 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... > > That's true, but running the code that checks whether the watchpoint > is still in scope after each instruction would slow down GDB even > more, while the scope breakpoint doesn't add any slowdown. > > Of course, this is all based on speculative arguments, at least from > my side, so it could be 100% wrong. If someone who reads this knows > for a fact why scope breakpoints were introduced, please speak up. Please forgive me for not being able to contribute to the solution to this problem. Eli or Daneil, if either of you can decide which solution is correct, I'll look into fixing the problem. It just so happens that this bug doesn't really effect me in any way. I just happened to notice it when trying to enumerate many of the possibilities in GDB/MI. Would it be good if I entered a bug report? or should i just forget about this? Bob Rossi