Re: MI: reporting of multiple breakpoints

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>]

On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 01:38:17PM -0500, Paul Koning wrote:
> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
> 
>  Daniel> On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 01:08:41PM -0500, Paul Koning wrote:
>  >> My point is that, at least on some of the platforms, a watchpoint
>  >> exception will deliver the PC of the instruction doing the store,
>  >> or that PC can be deduced.  Therefore, on such platforms, that is
>  >> the PC that should be reported, which will make the report point
>  >> to the right source line.  Of course, the resume will not resume
>  >> there, but GDB already has machinery for that.
> 
>  Daniel> I've got no idea what you mean by "GDB already has machinery
>  Daniel> for that".  Want to clarify?
> 
> I'm referring to various target macros (don't remember the names) that
> control whether the PC needs to be advanced before you continue from a
> stop.  I remember using some of those when I implemented watchpoint
> support on our MIPS platform.

Those assume that the store has not been executed - if we had "backed
up" to the store, it would be re-executed.  I'm sure you can think of
an example where that wouldn't make the user happy.

On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 01:54:13PM -0500, Paul Koning wrote:
> run to completion, then things would be different.  So yes, reporting
> something like "stopped at foo.c:425 due to a store watchpoint at
> foo.c:421" would be ideal.

Since I just suggested something similar, I think we're making progress
here :-)

If you want to contribute support for this, since you obviously have
access to and interest in a platform which supports it, I'm sure we
could find a way to present the information to the user.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery