Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: jjohnstn@redhat.com, cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA]: Watchpoints per thread patch
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:43:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <01c4c75b$Blat.v2.2.2$5af9fae0@zahav.net.il> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041109193124.GA4085@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:31:24 -0500)

> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:31:24 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
> 	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> We could use a Linux native specific observer, or handle this through
> the target stack.  I think handling it through the target stack makes
> more sense, but I haven't sketched out what the target method would
> look like.  If other GDB developers think that the precedent of a
> native-code-only observer isn't a bad one, then maybe we should go back
> to your previous placement of the observer and give it a Linux specific
> name.

Is there any significant difference between native-code-only observers
and the other kind?  Could you elaborate?

Anyway, I said in the past several times that I don't really like to
use the observers too much.  The reason for that is that with a
mechanism such as this, which is like hooks in Emacs or interrupt
handlers in the old DOS days, you often get in trouble once more than
one observer is hooked to some event: the order of the the observers'
invocation might matter, and AFAIK we do not have any way to control
that (nor would we know what order is ``right'', even if we had a way
to control it).

So in general, if there's a reasonably good design that avoids using
observers, I'd favor that.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-11-10 19:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-10-19 23:57 Jeff Johnston
2004-10-20  5:04 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-10-20 11:03 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-10-20 16:21   ` Jeff Johnston
2004-10-20 17:27 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-10-20 17:30   ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-10-27 22:36     ` Jeff Johnston
2004-10-27 22:41       ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-10-27 23:17         ` Jeff Johnston
2004-10-28 13:33           ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-10-28 19:47             ` Jeff Johnston
2004-10-28 19:52               ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-10-28 20:13                 ` Jeff Johnston
2004-10-28  4:55       ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-11-04 18:25         ` Jeff Johnston
2004-11-04 21:21           ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-11-05  4:49           ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-05 16:52             ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-05 18:29               ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-08 21:33                 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-09  1:04                   ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-09  2:20                     ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-09  2:33                       ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-09  4:53                         ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-11-09 15:11                         ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-09 18:41                           ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-11 21:22                             ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-09 19:06                         ` Jeff Johnston
2004-11-09 19:31                           ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-09 20:24                             ` Jim Blandy
2004-11-10  0:02                               ` Jeff Johnston
2004-11-10 14:39                                 ` Jim Blandy
2004-11-11 21:23                                 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-09 20:48                             ` Jeff Johnston
2004-11-09 20:50                               ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-10 19:45                               ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-11-10 22:08                                 ` Jeff Johnston
2004-11-10 19:43                             ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2004-10-20 19:27   ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-11-05 11:49 Ulrich Weigand

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='01c4c75b$Blat.v2.2.2$5af9fae0@zahav.net.il' \
    --to=eliz@gnu.org \
    --cc=cagney@gnu.org \
    --cc=drow@false.org \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    --cc=jjohnstn@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox