From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-32426-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 1758 invoked by alias); 13 Jul 2008 16:49:12 -0000
Received: (qmail 1749 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jul 2008 16:49:12 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:48:45 +0000
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) 	id 1KI4kZ-0004eN-7W 	for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:48:39 +0000
Received: from 78.158.192.230 ([78.158.192.230])         by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))         id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00         for <gdb@sources.redhat.com>; Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:48:39 +0000
Received: from vladimir by 78.158.192.230 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))         id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00         for <gdb@sources.redhat.com>; Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:48:39 +0000
To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
From:  Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
Subject:  Re: gdb.base/watchpoint-solib.exp
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:49:00 -0000
Message-ID:  <g5dbl0$5t8$1@ger.gmane.org>
References:  <200807131506.m6DF6pp2001941@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
Mime-Version:  1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7Bit
User-Agent: KNode/0.10.9
X-IsSubscribed: yes
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/msg00140.txt.bz2

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. Are you on a target
with no hardware breakpoints?

- Volodya