Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Index: b/gdbstub.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- a/gdbstub.c
>> +++ b/gdbstub.c
>> @@ -1145,10 +1145,64 @@ void gdb_register_coprocessor(CPUState *
>>      }
>>  }
>>  
>> +/* GDB breakpoint/watchpoint types */
>> +#define GDB_BREAKPOINT_SW        0
>> +#define GDB_BREAKPOINT_HW        1
>> +#define GDB_WATCHPOINT_WRITE     2
>> +#define GDB_WATCHPOINT_READ      3
>> +#define GDB_WATCHPOINT_ACCESS    4
>> +
>> +#ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
>> +static const int xlat_gdb_type[] = {
>> +    [GDB_WATCHPOINT_WRITE]  = BP_GDB | BP_MEM_WRITE,
>> +    [GDB_WATCHPOINT_READ]   = BP_GDB | BP_MEM_READ,
>> +    [GDB_WATCHPOINT_ACCESS] = BP_GDB | BP_MEM_ACCESS,
>> +};
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +static int gdb_breakpoint_insert(CPUState *env, target_ulong addr,
>> +                                 target_ulong len, int type)
>> +{
>> +    switch (type) {
>> +    case GDB_BREAKPOINT_SW ... GDB_BREAKPOINT_HW:
>>   
> 
> We've avoided this GCCism pretty much.  I don't think the code is
> significantly cleaner with it so I think it's best to avoid it.

OK, I see the general problem. Restricting ourselves here is not a big
issue - but for my other series which tried hard to canonicalizes x86's
cpu_gdb_read/write_register, sigh...

Jan