From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-31303-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 9632 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2008 16:45:58 -0000
Received: (qmail 9607 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Mar 2008 16:45:57 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su (HELO zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su) (158.250.17.23)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:45:33 +0000
Received: from Debian-exim by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with spam-scanned (Exim 4.50) 	id 1JXJDj-0000Z4-Cj 	for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:45:30 +0300
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ip6-localhost) 	by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) 	(Exim 4.50) 	id 1JXJDc-0000Yb-RM; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:45:20 +0300
From: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Subject: Re: Write watchpoints
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:45:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405)
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
References: <15867705.post@talk.nabble.com> <fqo8b8$4kd$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080306131325.GA21308@caradoc.them.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080306131325.GA21308@caradoc.them.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200803061945.21053.ghost@cs.msu.su>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-03/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2

On Thursday 06 March 2008 16:13:25 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 11:00:40AM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > 1. HAVE_STEPPABLE_WATCHPOINT tells that you can just single-step over the
> > watchpoint, while it's set, and it won't fire during single-stepping.
> > The macro basically looks at to_have_steppable_watchpoint field in target.
> > 2. gdbarch_have_nonsteppable_watchpoint tells that we have to single-step
> > over watchpoint, while it's disabled. 
> > 
> > It appears that you need to arrange for exactly one of those to return true.
> 
> Yes, this sounds like a nonsteppable watchpoint.  The default, if
> neither of those is set, is for continuable watchpoints - ones we can
> continue through once they've been hit.

I noticed that HAVE_CONTINUABLE_WATCHPOINT macro has some definitions,
but is never checked. Should we kill it?

- Volodya