From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11296 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2006 20:28:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 11287 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2006 20:28:09 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:28:08 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-152-98.inter.net.il [80.230.152.98]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DOW65833 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:27:59 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:32:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20060217202419.GD30881@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:24:19 -0500) Subject: Re: MI: reporting of multiple breakpoints Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060217153211.GA21402@nevyn.them.org> <20060217194426.GA28988@nevyn.them.org> <20060217200558.GA30145@nevyn.them.org> <20060217202419.GD30881@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00219.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:24:19 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com > > > No, I think we were stopped by both of them. They both watch the same > > address, so they both fired when the location gets written. > > If they were set using the same watchpoint register, they "both" > triggered trivially. If they were set using different hardware > watchpoint resources, then the target almost certainly reported only > one of them. But, as you well know, GDB will think that both were reported, due to the way we currently find out which watchpoint triggered. > > But what about the commands associated with that breakpoint? We've > > reached the address and stopped, allright, but we didn't run the > > commands the user wanted us to, did we? > > We should run them when we stop. That's what I'm trying to say :-) Do we run them now? If not, I think we agree that we should fix that.