From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8952 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2010 12:59:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 8940 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Apr 2010 12:59:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:59:12 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17B242BAD0A; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 08:59:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id iTP3Irkc8g0h; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 08:59:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D89042BAD07; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 08:59:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AB4E1F5895; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 05:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:59:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pierre Muller Cc: pieter.maljaars@altenpts.nl, Peter.Schauer@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de, gdb@sourceware.org, "'Joseph S. Myers'" , 'Pedro Alves' Subject: Re: Question about solaris CANNOT_STEP_HW_WATCHPOINTS macro Message-ID: <20100423125909.GK13204@adacore.com> References: <20100423074150.24ae59af@mail.altenpts.nl> <002301cae2e2$34a4c3e0$9dee4ba0$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <002301cae2e2$34a4c3e0$9dee4ba0$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-04/txt/msg00099.txt.bz2 > I reproduced Pieter's results and filed > a bug report: > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11531 Just a small suggestion when filing bug reports, if you can - it makes it easier to figure out the problem being reported is when showing what is happening and what should have happened. Also, confirming the command used to build the program is also useful... Note that, on my end, it looked like the CANNOT_STEP_HW_WATCHPOINTS macro had no effect, so I am not sure I understand the PR. But I did the testing on x86 as opposed to x86_64, so perhaps that makes a difference. Or maybe the OS version does - I tested on version 8. I don't know if we have a machine that runs version 10. -- Joel