From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5230 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2007 17:54:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 5223 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Oct 2007 17:54:09 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:54:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l91Hs5HZ003828 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:54:05 -0400 Received: from pobox-2.corp.redhat.com (pobox-2.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l91Hs5Zn017050; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:54:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn-6-3.fab.redhat.com [10.33.6.3]) by pobox-2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l91Hs4t3011041; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:54:04 -0400 Message-ID: <47013438.4030100@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:54:00 -0000 From: Phil Muldoon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070727) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roland McGrath CC: Frysk Hackers Subject: Re: Optimizing watchpoints References: <46FD7036.2010500@redhat.com> <20071001012529.D264A4D0325@magilla.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20071001012529.D264A4D0325@magilla.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q4/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2 Roland McGrath wrote: > You've brought up two issues, which I think each deserve their own separate > thread of discussion. The second thread is about indirection, or generally > speaking, dynamic specification of watchpoint addresses. That is a worthy > and interesting subject, but I don't think you need to worry about it now. > For considering the watchpoint implementation per se, we can just talk > about "a watchpoint" as being a request to watch a given fixed address. > Thanks for the detailed email. I'm still absorbing the information parted here, and will in my usual fashion, come back with questions later as things make better/more sense. I get the impressions that watchpoints themselves are straightforward enough, but managing them and dealing with the arch specific edge cases is tricky situation. Regards Phil >