This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch 2/3] Implement support for PowerPC BookE ranged watchpoints
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman at br dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: pedro at codesourcery dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com, brobecker at adacore dot com
- Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:04:15 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] Implement support for PowerPC BookE ranged watchpoints
- References: <1290549100.3164.47.camel@hactar> <201011251731.58135.pedro@codesourcery.com> <1290806122.3009.37.camel@hactar> <201011271747.39053.pedro@codesourcery.com> <1293130182.14239.21.camel@hactar>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>,
> Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:49:42 -0200
>
> +When running on PowerPC embedded processors @value{GDBN} automatically uses
^
Comma here, please.
> +ranged hardware watchpoints unless the @code{exact-watchpoints} option is on,
^
And here.
> +@item set powerpc exact-watchpoints
> +@itemx show powerpc exact-watchpoints
> +Allow @value{GDBN} to use only one debug register when watching a variable
> +of scalar type, thus assuming that all acesses that modify that variable
> +happen at its starting address.
I suggest a slight rewording of the last sentence:
... thus assuming that the variable is accessed through the address
of its first byte.
Is that wording accurate? If it is, the patch for the manual is okay
with those changes.
Thanks.