labath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24629#550841, @fjricci wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24629#550823, @tfiala wrote: > > > > > There is no reasonable thing we can base the expectation as the exact > > > > same device with a different cpu revision could support watchpoints > > > > just fine, so we could just define the list of these tests externally > > > > (in this case, I would probably annotate them with the watchpoint > > > > category and then do the skips based on categories instead). > > > > > > > > > > > Tangential: most chips I've worked on that had hardware watchpoint support > > had an instruction that could be called to find out if such a feature > > exists. I think ARM does this. I would think we could expose an API that > > says whether watchpoints are supported or not, and use that info in LLDB > > and the test suite to enable or disable them. > > > I believe that PTRACE_GETHBPREGS with a value of 0 returns the hardware > stoppoint info on arm, and the byte representing the number of available > hardware watchpoints will be 0 if they aren't supported. Not sure if there's > a simpler way. It's a bit trickier than that. In some cases that call will still return non-zero as the number of supported watchpoints, but the "watchpoint size" field will be zero, and it will still mean that watchpoints don't work. This is probably a kernel bug, though it is pretty easy to work around. The more boring part would be plumbing that information all the way to the test suite - Nothing that can't be done, it's just a bit laborious, so I haven't done that yet. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D24629 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
