This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [mi] watchpoint-scope exec async command
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: GDB <gdb at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:11:05 -0500
- Subject: Re: [mi] watchpoint-scope exec async command
- References: <20050329013634.GB6373@nevyn.them.org> <20050329024945.GC3957@white> <20050329020123.GA7266@nevyn.them.org> <01c534a6$Blat.v2.4$944e44a0@zahav.net.il> <20050329214414.GA3498@nevyn.them.org> <01c53564$Blat.v2.4$1da3c140@zahav.net.il> <20050331014749.GA264@white> <01c535ab$Blat.v2.4$c21baac0@zahav.net.il> <20050331205826.GA1590@white> <01c5369a$Blat.v2.4$2f0a6100@zahav.net.il>
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 11:06:05AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:58:26 -0500
> > From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> > Cc: GDB <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
> >
> > I do have another question though. If GDB has another mecanism to
> > determine when hardware watchpoints go out of scope, why does it add the
> > scope watchpoint at all?
>
> I think that the scope breakpoint was introduced when software
> watchpoints were coded. Software watchpoints do need the scope
> breakpoint, and as you demonstrated, there's no problem in that case.
> That is why I think we should simply not use the scope breakpoint for
> hardware watchpoints.
Actually, I don't think software watchpoints need it at all. A
software watchpoint is implemented primarily by single-stepping the
inferior, right? Well, after every single-step we know whether or not
the breakpoint is still in scope...
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC