Shouldn't this patch be investigated/integrated into the beta
sources of gdb at sourceware.cygnus.com?
Marty Leisner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Shouldn't this patch be investigated/integrated into the beta
sources of gdb at sourceware.cygnus.com?
Marty Leisner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
I just wondered if this should be integrated into ptrace(), so
the various debuggers wouldn't have to know about it.
It seems that would be the proper abstraction - hardware that supports
it would "have it" - and the programs that "used it" wouldn't have to
know anything special.
I only have
From: Thomas David Rivers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just wondered if this should be integrated into ptrace(), so
the various debuggers wouldn't have to know about it.
It seems that would be the proper abstraction - hardware that supports
it would "have it" - and the programs that "used it"
I just wondered if this should be integrated into ptrace(), so
the various debuggers wouldn't have to know about it.
It seems that would be the proper abstraction - hardware that supports
it would have it - and the programs that used it wouldn't have to
know anything special.
I only have a
From: Thomas David Rivers riv...@dignus.com
I just wondered if this should be integrated into ptrace(), so
the various debuggers wouldn't have to know about it.
It seems that would be the proper abstraction - hardware that supports
it would have it - and the programs that used it
Hi,
(I've CC'd -current because of the implications there ...)
Here are my patches for hardware debug register support for the i386
port. I think this is ready to be reviewed and hopefully committed.
It consists of modifications to 13 files and the addition of 1 new
file. The new file is
On Jul 07, 1999 at 10:25:12PM -0400, Brian Dean wrote:
OK, I did that. What is the convention for naming the flags? The
only one in use for that set of flags is FP_SOFTFP. I'm currently
using PCB_DBREGS, but I but I easily change the name to whatever
convention dictates - please advise.
On Jul 07, 1999 at 10:25:12PM -0400, Brian Dean wrote:
OK, I did that. What is the convention for naming the flags? The
only one in use for that set of flags is FP_SOFTFP. I'm currently
using PCB_DBREGS, but I but I easily change the name to whatever
convention dictates - please advise.
Jonathan Lemon writes:
In article local.mail.freebsd-hackers/199907041453.kaa03...@dean.pc.sas.com
you write:
This is not as efficent as it could be implemented with a separate
flag to indicate whether saving the debug registers is necessary since
loading/storing the debug registers is
for setting/getting the hardware watchpoints at the
apropriate place(s).
Thanks,
-Brian
--
Brian Dean SAS Institute Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Thomas David Rivers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: support for i386 hardware debug watch
for setting/getting the hardware watchpoints at the
apropriate place(s).
Thanks,
-Brian
--
Brian Dean SAS Institute Inc brd...@unx.sas.com
To: Thomas David Rivers riv...@dignus.com
Cc: brd...@unx.sas.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: support for i386 hardware debug
In article local.mail.freebsd-hackers/199907041453.kaa03...@dean.pc.sas.com yo
u write:
This is not as efficent as it could be implemented with a separate
flag to indicate whether saving the debug registers is necessary since
loading/storing the debug registers is fairly expensive (11 clocks on
an
I've got some prototype code in place which supports the context
switching part of this. It's pretty simple right now, as I'm trying
to keep changes to a minimum.
What I've done is simply added the dr0-dr3,dr6,dr7 registers to
'struct pcb' in /usr/src/sys/i386/include/pcb.h. In
:(which hopefully constitute the bulk of the system load.) As a rough
:guide as to what's up for grabs, Liedtke's measured a reduction of the
:cost of a context switch on L4 from somewhere between 95 and 914 clocks
:(on pentium) down to 23 clock cycles when using small address spaces.
:The
Hi,
After recently debugging a very elusive memory overwrite problem that
I was only able to find by setting up a debugger watch point, and
suffering through the slowness that this introduced, I began reading
up on the ix86 support for hardware watch points. Using this facility
of the chip would
Hi,
After recently debugging a very elusive memory overwrite problem that
I was only able to find by setting up a debugger watch point, and
suffering through the slowness that this introduced, I began reading
up on the ix86 support for hardware watch points. Using this facility
of the
Thomas David Rivers wrote:
Hi,
After recently debugging a very elusive memory overwrite problem that
I was only able to find by setting up a debugger watch point, and
suffering through the slowness that this introduced, I began reading
up on the ix86 support for hardware watch
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
Thomas David Rivers wrote:
Is there any interest in supporting something like this in FreeBSD?
I'm volunteering to spend some cycles on this, but I don't want to go
to the effort if there's little chance that the work would be
integrated.
On Saturday, 3 July 1999 at 12:13:55 -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
Thomas David Rivers wrote:
Is there any interest in supporting something like this in FreeBSD?
I'm volunteering to spend some cycles on this, but I don't want to go
to the effort if
20 matches
Mail list logo
