From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14484 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2003 15:34:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6196 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2003 15:13:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.157.166.107) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Jun 2003 15:13:28 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2093B2B5F; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3EF5C78D.30803@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:34:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John S. Yates, Jr." Cc: gdb Subject: Re: supporting hw break/watch for embedded ppc References: <005d01c32a0f$86f44fa0$1400a8c0@astral> <3EE38BB8.1060904@redhat.com> <012a01c32e98$ce0beaa0$1400a8c0@astral> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00429.txt.bz2 >> > I have an mpc855 remote stub that implements Z0/z0. >> > This worked entirely as expected. Auto-detection >> > used to attempt Z0, discover it was unsupported, >> > and refrained from ever trying it again. Naively I >> > assumed that the remaining Zt variants would behave >> > similarly. This is not the case. > >> >> It should be the case. >> > >> > So where do I go to enable ppc hw breaks/watches? > >> >> ``set debug remote 1'' to see exactly what the host/target are doing. > > > Been there. Done that. > > The culprit is remote.c/remote_check_watch_resources > which is hardwired via the earlier definitions: > > int remote_hw_watchpoint_limit = 0; > int remote_hw_breakpoint_limit = 0; Have you tried: (gdb) help set remote hardware-breakpoint-limit Set the maximum number of target hardware breakpoints. Specify a negative limit for unlimited. > For now I have added comparisons between chip names > and TARGET_ARCHITECTURE->printable_name along with > corresponding known numbers of resource. It ain't > pretty but it does work. > > Am I missing something? There is a discussion and thread about improving the way GDB queries the target for its level of watchpoint support. It involves some re-aranging of the breakpoints though (look for a thread between my self and Eli). I've been to busy fixing up frames. Andrew