From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-24399-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 25136 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2006 19:57:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 25128 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2006 19:57:44 -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; Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:57:43 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-249-121.inter.net.il [84.228.249.121]) 	by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) 	with ESMTP id DPD68162 (AUTH halo1); 	Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:57:37 +0200 (IST)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 03:16:00 -0000
Message-Id: <u8xs7w28d.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>
CC: drow@false.org, ghost@cs.msu.su, gdb@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <17400.46393.531000.150247@gargle.gargle.HOWL> (message from Paul 	Koning on Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:13:13 -0500)
Subject: Re: MI: reporting of multiple breakpoints
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <20060217153211.GA21402@nevyn.them.org> 	<dt4r7g$h69$1@sea.gmane.org> 	<ulkw9hj1y.fsf@gnu.org> 	<20060217194426.GA28988@nevyn.them.org> 	<ufymhhi81.fsf@gnu.org> 	<17398.11182.747232.774924@gargle.gargle.HOWL> 	<20060217200712.GB30145@nevyn.them.org> 	<17398.12047.624911.347942@gargle.gargle.HOWL> 	<20060217202047.GC30881@nevyn.them.org> 	<17398.15554.431196.208031@gargle.gargle.HOWL> 	<20060217211942.GA609@nevyn.them.org> 	<17398.16942.92466.13879@gargle.gargle.HOWL> 	<ur760gaum.fsf@gnu.org> <17400.46393.531000.150247@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
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: 2006-02/txt/msg00259.txt.bz2

> Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:13:13 -0500
> From: Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>
> Cc: drow@false.org, ghost@cs.msu.su, gdb@sources.redhat.com
> 
> Yes, it is likely that the exception PC for a watchpoint exception
> points after the store, not at it.

No, the PC for the inferior's current address points after the store.
The PC for whatever instruction caused the watchpoint exception points
at that instruction.  We are talking about 2 different values of PC.

> The issue is: what user watch/break is reported, and what line is
> reported?

We report the right watch and the right line.  What we fail to do is
run the commands of the breakpoint whose location is the instruction
right after the one which caused the watchpoint exception.  We need to
run those commands even if we decide not to announce the breakpoint.

> My argument is: if the hardware permits you to know the PC of the
> store, then you can do a BETTER job helping the user, by translating
> the address of the store, NOT the exception PC, back into a line
> number.

We already do this.  In fact, we did this from day one of watchpoint
support.  And we do this on all platforms that support watchpoints.