From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2304 invoked by alias); 11 Aug 2009 23:38:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 2291 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Aug 2009 23:38:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:37:45 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 365C810705; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:37:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D948B1061C; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:37:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mb0uT-0007Pp-S9; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:37:41 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:38:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: Julian Smith , "gdb@sources.redhat.com" Subject: Re: Some questions about gdb's remote protocol and reverse debugging Message-ID: <20090811233741.GA28274@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , Julian Smith , "gdb@sources.redhat.com" References: <20090811224401.4d9e8942.jsmith@undo-software.com> <4A81FD36.2040009@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A81FD36.2040009@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00080.txt.bz2 On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 04:22:30PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > >Is there any way to tell gdb to try to use hardware breakpoints (with > >the 'Z1' and 'z1' commands) before resorting to 'M' and 'm' ? [In the > >environment i'm working in, UndoDB, hardware breakpoints are more > >convenient because they don't require any patching up of %pc, and > >poking breakpoints directly into memory is not supported.] > > Not as such, no. You use a different syntax to set a hardware > breakpoint. The command is "hbreak" instead of "break". You > should at least be able to try stuff out with that. Or, just make your stub treat Z0 as a hardware breakpoint? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery