From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-24375-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 30557 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2006 11:39:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 30549 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Feb 2006 11:39:03 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from gandalf.inter.net.il (HELO gandalf.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.17)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:39:02 +0000
Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (nitzan.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) 	by gandalf.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.1-GA) 	with ESMTP id HXK04783; 	Sat, 18 Feb 2006 13:38:13 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-139-42.inter.net.il [84.228.139.42]) 	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) 	with ESMTP id CSP68665 (AUTH halo1); 	Sat, 18 Feb 2006 13:38:12 +0200 (IST)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 15:47:00 -0000
Message-Id: <upslkgamz.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: <17398.18077.716159.385642@gargle.gargle.HOWL> (message from Paul 	Koning on Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:56:45 -0500)
Subject: Re: MI: reporting of multiple breakpoints
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <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> 	<20060217214303.GA1375@nevyn.them.org>	 	<17398.18077.716159.385642@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/msg00235.txt.bz2

> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:56:45 -0500
> From: Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>
> Cc: eliz@gnu.org, ghost@cs.msu.su, gdb@sources.redhat.com
> 
> However, the fact that some architectures have imprecise watchpoints
> is no reason to force imprecision on those that can do better.

What do you mean by ``do better''?  Should we back up PC to the
instruction that triggered the watchpoint?  If we do, then when we
continue, the watchpoint will trigger again and again, ad nauseam.