Re: Code in can_use_hardware_watchpoint()

["Jeffrey A. Law" <law@cygnus.com>]

In article <np672gury4.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com> you write:
>I'm not really familiar with this code, but:
>
>> One solution is to add an:
>> 
>>       else if (v->lval == lval_register)
>>         return 0;
>
>I think this is the right thing.
>
>The value chain is supposed to be a list of all the values generated
>while evaluating the watchpoint's expression.  (What if someone else
>generates a value in the mean time?  Don't you think it's a bad idea
>to draft a list intended for storage management into use in expression
>analysis?  Bleah.)  If you find anything on there that could change,
>but can't be watched, you should return zero.
I agree with Jim (and I am somewhat familiar with the code, though most
of the details have become fuzzy over the years).

Basically we have to build a list of all the expressions/values which
are required to evaluate a watchpoint.  If anything on that list of
values can not be watched with a hardware watchpoint, then we do not
allow hardware watchpoints to be used.

>But the fix seems so obvious there must be something else going on...
I don't think so.  I think it's just a case we didn't properly think
through.

If the only value on the chain was a reg, then we'd be OK because we would
not have found a memory location.  But if we try to watch p->q and P is in
a reg, then we'd lose.

At one time that code may have done an "else return 0;", but that may have
been kicking out too many things which it should have accepted.

jeff