From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-32428-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 11699 invoked by alias); 13 Jul 2008 17:53:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 11683 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jul 2008 17:53:54 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:53:25 +0000
Received: (qmail 25800 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2008 17:53:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO 172.16.unknown.plus.ru) (vladimir@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 13 Jul 2008 17:53:23 -0000
From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: gdb.base/watchpoint-solib.exp
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:53:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
References: <200807131506.m6DF6pp2001941@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <g5dbl0$5t8$1@ger.gmane.org> <200807131704.m6DH4ugw014744@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
In-Reply-To: <200807131704.m6DH4ugw014744@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200807132153.17447.vladimir@codesourcery.com>
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: 2008-07/txt/msg00142.txt.bz2

On Sunday 13 July 2008 21:04:56 Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> > Date:  Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:48:39 +0400
> > 
> > Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Vladimir,
> > > 
> > > The watchpoint-solib.exp test seems to assume hardware watchpoints:
> > > 
> > >   gdb_test "watch g" "Hardware watchpoint 3: g" "set watchpoint on g"
> > > 
> > > Is this intentional, or should this be changed to accept "normal"
> > > software watchpoints too?
> > 
> > Hi Mark,
> > 
> > this test was added by
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gdb.patches/37556 and that
> > commits changes the way the memory locations to watch are stored and
> > handled for watchpoint. Since software watchpoints do not actually
> > have any memory locations to watch, I suspect that the crash this
> > test is supposed to guard against did not happen with software
> > watchpoints.
> 
> Ah, if you want to explicity test hardware watchpoints, perhaps we
> should test that the target supports them and skip the test otherwise.

Is there a read-made way to check if hardware watchpoints are supported?

- Volodya