Re: [RFA/breakpoint] Fix errors from disabled watchpoints

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 12:08:30PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > >
> > > Right now, if you set and then disable a watchpoint, you'll still memory
> > > errors from it in two places.  One is fatal, and comes from
> > > insert_breakpoints (); the other is just noisy, and comes from
> > > breakpoint_re_set_one ().  Neither really serves any purpose.  If a
> > > watchpoint is disabled, we don't need to check what its value is; we'll
> > > check when we insert it.
> > >
> > > It would be nice to do the equivalet of a bp_shlib_disabled for watchpoints
> > > on memory that isn't currently accessible but that's not really practical on
> > > any OS I know of, so the user still has to hand-disable and hand-enable the
> > > watchpoints.  But at least they don't have to _delete_ the watchpoints now.
> > >
> > > Is this OK?  No surprises in the testsuite on i386-linux.
> >
> > I'm not surprised that watchpoints were broken in this way,
> > but after looking at your changes, I am surprised that the
> > problem didn't show up in any other context.
> >
> > My only concern with your change is that you've changed
> > the code from explicitly listing the excluded states, to
> > assuming that they are all excluded except for one.  The
> > problem that concerns me with that is, what if future states
> > are added?
> 
> We were already being pretty inconsistent about which we checked; see
> how half the checks I deleted were inclusive and the other half were
> exclusive?
> 
> If we start adding states I suspect we'll need BREAKPOINT_ENABLED
> (bp->state), or something along those lines.

Or BREAKPOINT_INSERTABLE, or something.  OK, I'll approve it.