This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support the new PPC476 processor
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: bauerman at br dot ibm dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, luisgpm at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com, tyrlik at us dot ibm dot com
- Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:27:59 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support the new PPC476 processor
- References: <20091230221535.GA25399@caradoc.them.org> <83y6kjdbxj.fsf@gnu.org>
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 06:06:48AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:15:35 -0500
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
> > tyrlik@us.ibm.com
> >
> > > Thanks for the explanations. I think we should emulate this on
> > > architectures that don't have this in hardware (it doesn't sound
> > > hard).
> >
> > How do you mean? It seems basically impossible to me.
>
> How is it impossible to put several breakpoints covering a range of
> addresses?
I think ranged breakpoints are typically used with a large range of
addresses. For instance, I can imagine using them to cover an entire
shared library - say 1MB of code. Also we don't know which part of
the range is code and which is data, so using software breakpoints
indiscriminately could break the program.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery