On 15.12.2016 19:30, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > On 13 December 2016 at 12:16, Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost > <mailto:n54%gmx.com@localhost>> wrote: > > >> 5. Do not allow to mix PT_STEP and hardware watchpoint, in case of > >> single-stepping the code, disable (it means: don't set) hardware > >> watchpoints for threads. Some platforms might implement single-step with > >> hardware watchpoints and managing both at the same time is generating > >> extra pointless complexity. > > > Is this wise? I suspect it might be better to just expose all the hairy > details and let the client decide if the restriction should apply. > (to turn this round, if the details are not exposed, then clients will > wonder why their platform is being crippled). This is subject to change. I'm discussing it with debugger developers on LLDB. They wish to have as many data available about breakpoint/watchpoint as possible. This implies request for dedicated si_code for hardware assisted traps.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature