From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19917 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2014 13:43:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 19851 invoked by uid 89); 18 Jun 2014 13:43:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:42:56 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5IDgti8002361 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:42:55 -0400 Received: from blade.nx (ovpn-116-59.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.59]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5IDgscG027724; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:42:55 -0400 Received: by blade.nx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E43F42623FA; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:42:53 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:43:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/15] Create nat/i386-dregs.c Message-ID: <20140618134253.GB6225@blade.nx> References: <1403014378-4349-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <1403014378-4349-15-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <53A0731C.70202@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53A0731C.70202@redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00655.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > Hmm, there's still one remaining difference in gdb vs gdbserver, > after this, in hw breakpoints. > > i386_insert_hw_breakpoint and i386_remove_hw_breakpoint on > the GDB side still have the "work on a local copy" > bits, and the i386_dr_update_inferior_debug_regs and > i386_dr_show calls: [snip] > > While on the gdbserver side, we just call i386_dr_insert_watchpoint: [snip] > Any reason GDB can't do the same? Very good spot! I'll work on this. It also allows a bunch of those static calls to be reverted back to nonstatic. I like that (they made the exported interface of i386-dregs ugly!) I will work on a series to do this. Thanks, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/