From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3187 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2005 04:01:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 3040 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Nov 2005 04:01:00 -0000 Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Nov 2005 04:01:00 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-56-202.inter.net.il [80.230.56.202]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id CZF24110 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:00:51 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 04:01:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Vladimir Prus CC: jrydberg@virtutech.com, drow@false.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <200511141642.22179.ghost@cs.msu.su> (message from Vladimir Prus on Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:42:20 +0300) Subject: Re: read watchpoints ignored? Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200511111622.01337.ghost@cs.msu.su> <20051114024345.GB10567@nevyn.them.org> <43788E28.90108@virtutech.com> <200511141642.22179.ghost@cs.msu.su> 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: 2005-11/txt/msg00283.txt.bz2 > From: Vladimir Prus > Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:42:20 +0300 > Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , > Eli Zaretskii , > gdb@sources.redhat.com > > This essentially disables read watchpoints. What's the point in first > implementing read watchpoints in a target, and then disabling them completely > in gdb? I agree, this is not a good solution. > I don't yet have specific *real-world* examples, but using "is the value > different from the value last time we stopped" as a heuristic to decide if we > hit write watchpoint or read watchpoint seems fragile. It is a vast improvement on what we had before.