public inbox for gdb@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
Cc: Tim Newsome <tim@sifive.com>, gdb <gdb@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: gdb requires watchpoints to fire after the write
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 16:02:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f7737cfa92e27db8254934d9efd6f49d@polymtl.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180829154739.GB2521@adacore.com>

On 2018-08-29 11:47, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> I don't have experience with many different architectures, but as far 
>> as I
>> know, the expectation of the GDB is that the watchpoint is reported 
>> after
>> the write.  Otherwise it wouldn't need to save the value of the 
>> watched
>> expression.  That's also how software watchpoints seem to work.
>> 
>> The easiest way to deal with this would be to match GDB's expectation. 
>>  But
>> if you really prefer the behavior of reporting the watchpoint before 
>> the
>> event, I suppose it's always possible to teach GDB about this, but 
>> it's a
>> less trivial task.  Especially that when you GDB evaluates whether the 
>> watch
>> expression has changed value, it would need to consider the 
>> not-yet-written
>> value in memory.
>> 
>> I'm also curious to know if other architectures work in this way 
>> (report the
>> event before the write actually take place).
> 
> I seem to remember some architectures having different behaviors,
> and so we have a couple of entry points in GDB. For 
> architecture-specific
> settings, we have gdbarch_have_nonsteppable_watchpoint. For 
> target-specific
> settings, you would use target_have_steppable_watchpoint. (IIRC)

Indeed, the comment at infrun.c:5805 seems to hint that some (or all?) 
targets/arches do work like that?  And the fix is that GDB does a single 
step to execute the instruction that modifies the memory, and then 
evaluates the expression.  I hadn't thought about that.

See: 
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=blob;f=gdb/infrun.c;h=7731ccda68343b0118b9806615ff45b9f4d56c63;hb=HEAD#l5805

I'm just confused by this condition:

   if (stopped_by_watchpoint
       && (target_have_steppable_watchpoint
	  || gdbarch_have_nonsteppable_watchpoint (gdbarch)))

I don't understand why we check for target_have_steppable_watchpoint OR 
gdbarch_have_nonsteppable_watchpoint, they seem to mean opposite things.

Simon

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-08-29 16:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-08-28 22:08 Tim Newsome
2018-08-29 15:33 ` Simon Marchi
2018-08-29 15:47   ` Joel Brobecker
2018-08-29 15:56     ` Pedro Alves
2018-08-29 16:02     ` Simon Marchi [this message]
2018-08-29 17:29       ` Pedro Alves
2018-08-29 20:13         ` Tim Newsome
2018-08-29 20:58         ` Tom Tromey
2018-08-30  8:05           ` Joel Brobecker
2018-08-31 15:37             ` Pedro Alves
2018-08-31 15:13           ` Pedro Alves

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=f7737cfa92e27db8254934d9efd6f49d@polymtl.ca \
    --to=simon.marchi@polymtl.ca \
    --cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
    --cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
    --cc=tim@sifive.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).