From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3405 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2006 21:55:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 3396 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2006 21:55:19 -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 21:54:38 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FAwVl-0006kS-3s; Sun, 19 Feb 2006 16:54:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 04:33:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Paul Koning , ghost@cs.msu.su, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI: reporting of multiple breakpoints Message-ID: <20060219215433.GA25853@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Paul Koning , ghost@cs.msu.su, gdb@sources.redhat.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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/msg00260.txt.bz2 On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 09:52:14PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:08:41 -0500 > > From: Paul Koning > > Cc: ghost@cs.msu.su, gdb@sources.redhat.com > > > > 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. > > I think this happens on _all_ platforms that support watchpoints. Really? On x86, I suspect that the exception is always at the instruction following the store; so it's possible, although non-trivial, to identify the store by backtracking. Is that right? But I can easily imagine this not being the case on some architecture with delay slots. > > Therefore, on such platforms, that is the PC that should be > > reported, which will make the report point to the right source line. > > We already do precisely that. > > Again, the place that caused the store is known (and shown to the > user), but the place where the inferior is stopped is a different > place on many architectures, including x86. Wed are arguing about the > latter, not the former. Could you give me an example? I think that is desirable, but not at all what we do today - I have no idea how to retrieve the address of the store when I stop at a watchpoint. We show the old and new value, but that's it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery