From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51808) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XYgA2-00014M-Iq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:59:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XYgA1-0000rj-RQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:59:02 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-x22a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22a]:52227) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XYgA1-0000rG-MD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:59:01 -0400 Received: by mail-oi0-f42.google.com with SMTP id u20so13469669oif.1 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:58:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1410545057-14014-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:58:55 +0400 Message-ID: From: Max Filippov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] gdbstub: Allow target CPUs to specify watchpoint STOP_BEFORE_ACCESS flag List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Patch Tracking , qemu-devel , Michael Walle , "Edgar E. Iglesias" , Aurelien Jarno , Richard Henderson On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Max Filippov wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 15 September 2014 20:59, Max Filippov wrote: >>> I've tested xtensa part and have noticed no difference with or without >>> this patch: >>> gdb connected to qemu gdbstub always stops right after the watched instruction. >>> I guess that without this patch I should have seen gdb stopping not right after >>> the watched instruction, but one instruction later, right? >> >> Yes, that is the behaviour I saw on ARM. Perhaps for >> Xtensa gdb thinks it has no watchpoint support at all >> and is using its "singlestep-and-test" fallback? > > Hmmm, interesting. Yes, I see gdb single-stepping and reading watched buffer. > With the patch it first stops at the store instruction, without it -- > at the next one. > In both cases the following single-step request does nothing. Need to look at > it some more. Looks like I won't be able to look at it in a reasonable time. So, here's my Tested-by: Max Filippov to signify that it at least doesn't have visible negative effect on target-xtensa. I'll still try to figure out why xtensa doesn't exhibit the issue that the patch is supposed to fix. -- Thanks. -- Max