This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch 0/4] Fix hw watchpoints
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:24:00 -0700
- Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] Fix hw watchpoints
- References: <20090817194531.GA10694@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Jan
Kratochvil<jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> hw watchpoints currently have multiple issues for various corner cases, such
> as false hits, hits shown by SIGTRAP with no watchpoint printed, crashing
> forked processes, hanging fork etc.
>
> Regression tested only as a whole patchset on:
> x86_64-fedora11-linux-gnu
> x86_64-fedora11-linux-gnu -m32
> i686-fedora11-linux-gnu
> ppc64-rhel52-linux-gnu
> ? ? ? ?with default ppc target, no regressions but some new FAILs which are
> ? ? ? ?not caused by the new code in these patches
> ia64-rhel53-linux-gnu
> ? ? ? ?no regressions, new FAIL ("hbreak") which is not caused by the new
> ? ? ? ?code in these patches
> s390x-rhel53-linux-gnu
> ? ? ? ?with default s390x target, no regressions, new FAILs, "reorder" is
> ? ? ? ?some pthreads/kernel bug or incompatibility, "watchpoints-hw" is not
> ? ? ? ?caused by the new code in these patches (did not analyze more)
>
> Patches are incrementally dependent on each other. ?Expecting to check-in all
> of them together, their dependencies may not be strictly incremental. ?The GDB
> looks basically OK / tests OK on their incremental application (for testing).
>
> While the non-stop mode was regression tested by the GDB testsuite I did not
> consider much how the changes affect it. ?I think some of the fixes are not
> needed for non-stop.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Jan
>
Hi. Have you looked at whether gdbserver has similar issues?