From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20837 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2006 19:05:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 20828 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2006 19:05:13 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:05:11 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FAtrp-0005PQ-Fm; Sun, 19 Feb 2006 14:05:09 -0500 Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:52:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Paul Koning Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, dewar@adacore.com Subject: Re: MI: reporting of multiple breakpoints Message-ID: <20060219190509.GA20725@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Koning , gdb@sourceware.org, dewar@adacore.com References: <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> <17400.47897.765000.695598@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17400.48853.906000.28206@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <17400.47897.765000.695598@gargle.gargle.HOWL> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i 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/msg00256.txt.bz2 On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 01:38:17PM -0500, Paul Koning wrote: > >>>>> "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. Those assume that the store has not been executed - if we had "backed up" to the store, it would be re-executed. I'm sure you can think of an example where that wouldn't make the user happy. On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 01:54:13PM -0500, Paul Koning wrote: > run to completion, then things would be different. So yes, reporting > something like "stopped at foo.c:425 due to a store watchpoint at > foo.c:421" would be ideal. Since I just suggested something similar, I think we're making progress here :-) If you want to contribute support for this, since you obviously have access to and interest in a platform which supports it, I'm sure we could find a way to present the information to the user. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery