From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8519 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2007 00:53:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 8498 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2007 00:53:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com (HELO mu-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.134.188) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:53:11 +0000 Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g7so3188053muf.0 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:53:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.147.6 with SMTP id u6mr9361603hud.78.1197939186586; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:53:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.132.4 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:53:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:53:00 -0000 From: "Siva Velusamy" To: "Siva Velusamy" , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: rwatchpoint configuration In-Reply-To: <20071218004823.GA30270@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20071218004823.GA30270@caradoc.them.org> 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: 2007-12/txt/msg00127.txt.bz2 > > Since the MicroBlaze target can indeed set read-only watchpoints, this > > should not happen. It looks as if the target has not been properly > > configured. Could someone point me to the appropriate configuration > > settings and what the correct values should be for a processor that > > natively supports read watchpoints? > > I don't think there is an appropriate configuration knob at present. > > Eli, I think I remember you discussing this with someone else, a year > or two ago; do you remember the reasoning? If the watchpoint's type > is "only trigger on reads", then core GDB assuming it triggers on all > accesses seems problematic to me. > I did see some references to such behavior. e.g: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2005-11/msg00242.html However since it was ~ 2005, I assumed that was old. -Siva