From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4845 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2018 20:58:13 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 4827 invoked by uid 89); 29 Aug 2018 20:58:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1147 X-HELO: gateway30.websitewelcome.com Received: from gateway30.websitewelcome.com (HELO gateway30.websitewelcome.com) (192.185.147.85) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 20:58:10 +0000 Received: from cm15.websitewelcome.com (cm15.websitewelcome.com [100.42.49.9]) by gateway30.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9D6A8DF for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 15:58:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from box5379.bluehost.com ([162.241.216.53]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id v7X8fOr28bXuJv7XMfk8j6; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 15:58:09 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tromey.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=/bVzFzeRrLKkQJHtJxKO7KRwm7yqdIspLwznE05ITBA=; b=n23eJa4JYpDgps23LpFNf6x4Fg n2c7jc1y+m/OTRayITKZmNJ0MzPFGYWvt7JLOmIZLogsEKwkEI7qcpSwXnxlceRcBspQReHnifE7j dqqUH3+DvyFF6r0sjP7hL6naB; Received: from 75-166-85-72.hlrn.qwest.net ([75.166.85.72]:48648 helo=bapiya) by box5379.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from ) id 1fv7X8-003cWn-3m; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 15:57:46 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: Simon Marchi , Joel Brobecker , Tim Newsome , gdb Subject: Re: gdb requires watchpoints to fire after the write References: <3833782b96d47551263798eb78f448bd@polymtl.ca> <20180829154739.GB2521@adacore.com> <08cf0b78-0fe6-1eda-383f-7d64466d6381@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 20:58:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <08cf0b78-0fe6-1eda-383f-7d64466d6381@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Wed, 29 Aug 2018 18:29:05 +0100") Message-ID: <87ftywx54n.fsf@tromey.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2018-08/txt/msg00054.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> Yeah, it's confusing. [... great explanation ... ] This would be great as comments in gdbarch.sh and target.h. None of these things have comments currently. Pedro> We could most probably streamline all of this and come up with a better Pedro> design with some thought. See also the comment in mips-tdep.c: Pedro> /* FIXME: cagney/2003-08-29: The macros target_have_steppable_watchpoint, Pedro> HAVE_NONSTEPPABLE_WATCHPOINT, and target_have_continuable_watchpoint Pedro> need to all be folded into the target vector. Since they are Pedro> being used as guards for target_stopped_by_watchpoint, why not have Pedro> target_stopped_by_watchpoint return the type of watchpoint that the code Pedro> is sitting on? */ Pedro> set_gdbarch_have_nonsteppable_watchpoint (gdbarch, 1); I'm curious about why this should be in the target rather than in the gdbarch. It seems like a property of the ISA. Is it possible for gdbserver to do the single-step itself, avoiding a round trip? That was the only rationale I could think of. Tom