Re: How are watchpoints handled? (remote serial)
Juha Aaltonen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gdb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAHR0xd4bCjS7mHtDr=hPy1tVwM-iWrXqLj9QXau_wewH+TzM+w@mail.gmail.com> |
With single-step the same thing - installs both watchpoint and breakpoint. w \x00]0x00008180 in __delay_169 () at ../blinky.c:211 211 g_testloc = 1; (gdb) stepi Sending packet: $m81b0,4#c8...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ r +]Ack [$][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][#][8][0]Packet received: 00000000 [ w \x00]Sending packet: $Z2,81b0,4#13...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ r +]Ack [$][O][K][#][9][a]Packet received: OK [ w \x00]Sending packet: $p19#da...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ r +]Ack [$][9][7][0][1][0][0][6][0][#][9][7]Packet received: 97010060 [ w \x00]Sending packet: $m8180,4#9e...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ r +]Ack [$][0][0][3][0][8][7][e][5][#][c][c]Packet received: 003087e5 [ w \x00]Sending packet: $m8180,4#9e...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ r +]Ack [$][0][0][3][0][8][7][e][5][#][c][c]Packet received: 003087e5 [ w \x00]Sending packet: $Z0,8184,4#eb...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ r +]Ack [$][O][K][#][9][a]Packet received: OK [ w \x00]Sending packet: $c#63...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ r +]Ack [$][T][0][5][#][b][9]Packet received: T05 [ w \x00]Sending packet: $g#67...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ r +]Ack [$][8][8][1][3][0][0][0][0][2][c][0][1][0][0][0][0][8][8][1][3][0][0][0][0][0][1][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][a][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][3][0][0][0][0][0][0][e][8][0][3][0][0][0][0][b][0][8][1][0][0][0][0][2][c][0][a][0][2][1][f][2][3][0][0][0][0][0][0][2][8][0][a][0][2][1][f][2][4][0][a][0][2][1][f][3][3][0][c][0][1][1][f][a][0][9][7][0][0][0][0][8][0][8][1][0][0][0][0][8][0][8][1][0][0][0][0][0][9][0][0][0][0][9][0][0][9][0][0][0][0][9][0][0][9][0][0][0][0][9][0][0][9][0][0][0][0][9][0][0][9][0][0][0][0][9][0][0][9][0][0][0][0][9][0][0][9][0][0][0][0][9][0][0][9][0][0][0][0][9][0][0][9][0][0][0][0][9][0][9][7][0][1][0][0][6][0][#][2][3]Packet received: 881300002c01000088130000010000000a00000003000000e8030000b08100002c0a021f23000000280a021f240a021f330c011fa0970000808100008081000009000090090000900900009009000090090000900900009009000090090000900900009097010060 [ w \x00]Sending packet: $m8180,4#9e...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ r +]Ack [$][0][0][3][0][8][7][e][5][#][c][c]Packet received: 003087e5 ... (lots of memory reads) ... [ w \x00]Sending packet: $m8180,4#9e...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ r +]Ack [$][0][0][3][0][8][7][e][5][#][c][c]Packet received: 003087e5 [ w \x00]Sending packet: $z0,8184,4#0b...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ r +]Ack [$][O][K][#][9][a]Packet received: OK [ w \x00]Sending packet: $z2,81b0,4#33...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ r +]Ack [$][O][K][#][9][a]Packet received: OK [ w \x00]0x00008180 211 g_testloc = 1; (gdb) The g_testloc never gets set to 1. On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Juha Aaltonen <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe that's a bug in gdb-multiarch 7.7.1? > Remote-debugging an ARM (watch g_testloc): > > (This is as it should be.) > gdbarch_dump: have_nonsteppable_watchpoint = 1 > > > w \x00]0x00008180 in __delay_169 () at ../blinky.c:211 > 211 g_testloc = 1; > (gdb) cont > Continuing. > Sending packet: > $m81b0,4#c8...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ > r +]Ack > [$][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][#][8][0]Packet received: 00000000 > [ > w \x00]Sending packet: > $Z2,81b0,4#13...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ > r +]Ack > [$][O][K][#][9][a]Packet received: OK > [ > w \x00]Sending packet: $c#63...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ > r +]Ack > [$][T][0][5][#][b][9]Packet received: T05 > [ > w \x00]Sending packet: $g#67...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ > r +]Ack > [$][8][8][1][3][0][0][0][0][2][c][0][1][0][0][0][0][8][8][1][3][0][0][0][0][0][1][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][a][0][0][0][0][0][0][0][3][0][0][0][0][0][0][e][8][0][3][0][0][0][0][b][0][8][1][0][0][0][0][2][c][0][a][0][2][1][f][2][3][0][0][0][0][0][0][2][8][0][a][0][2][1][f][2][4][0][a][0][2][1][f][4][3][0][c][0][1][1][f][a][0][9][7][0][0][0][0][8][0][8][1][0][0][0][0][8][0][8][1][0][0][0][0][0][9][0][0][0][0][9][0][0][9][0][0][0][0][9][0][0][9][0][0][0][0][9][0][0][9][0][0][0][0][9][0][0][9][0][0][0][0][9][0][0][9][0][0][0][0][9][0][0][9][0][0][0][0][9][0][0][9][0][0][0][0][9][0][0][9][0][0][0][0][9][0][9][7][0][1][0][0][6][0][#][2][4]Packet > received: 881300002c01000088130000010000000a00000003000000e8030000b08100002c0a021f23000000280a021f240a021f430c011fa0970000808100008081000009000090090000900900009009000090090000900900009009000090090000900900009097010060 > [ > w \x00]Sending packet: > $m8180,4#9e...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ > r +]Ack > [$][0][0][3][0][8][7][e][5][#][c][c]Packet received: 003087e5 > [ > ... (lots of memory reads) ... > [ > w \x00]Sending packet: > $m8180,4#9e...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ > r +]Ack > [$][0][0][3][0][8][7][e][5][#][c][c]Packet received: 003087e5 > [ > w \x00] > Program received signal SIGTRAP, Trace/breakpoint trap. > Sending packet: > $z2,81b0,4#33...[\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][\x00][ > r +]Ack > [$][O][K][#][9][a]Packet received: OK > [ > w \x00]0x00008180 in __delay_169 () at ../blinky.c:211 > 211 g_testloc = 1; > (gdb) > > > No stepping over watchpoint. > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Juha Aaltonen <[email protected]> wrote: >> How should the watchpoints be handled by remote stub/server? >> It seems that when 'cont'-command is given, gdb re-installs watchpoint >> and sends 'c'-packet. >> >> If the return address is the trap address, the watchpoint trigs again, >> but if the address is advanced, >> the access is not done at all, because the watchpoint makes exception >> before the access is made.