From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6108 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2004 19:45:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6036 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2004 19:45:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Nov 2004 19:45:07 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.154.117]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.5-GR) with ESMTP id DBQ93341 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:35:45 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:45:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Jeff Johnston Message-ID: <01c4c75b$Blat.v2.2.2$cf870420@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: drow@false.org, cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <41912D20.6090706@redhat.com> (message from Jeff Johnston on Tue, 09 Nov 2004 15:48:32 -0500) Subject: Re: [RFA]: Watchpoints per thread patch Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <01c4bca9$Blat.v2.2.2$adcffb00@zahav.net.il> <418A741C.4080306@redhat.com> <20041105044917.GA13554@nevyn.them.org> <418BAFC9.6050705@gnu.org> <20041105182850.GA22533@nevyn.them.org> <418FE5E7.3070501@gnu.org> <20041109010425.GA31431@nevyn.them.org> <4190292D.5070103@gnu.org> <20041109023306.GA1797@nevyn.them.org> <4191151F.6070607@redhat.com> <20041109193124.GA4085@nevyn.them.org> <41912D20.6090706@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00208.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 15:48:32 -0500 > From: Jeff Johnston > Cc: Andrew Cagney , Eli Zaretskii , > 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. This will be aided by renaming thread-db to be clearly Linux > > native code. > > > > Ok. I'll wait and see if anybody else has objections. Eli, I understand that I > would have to rename the observer and change its definition appropriately. Yes, if you decide to modify the observer's name to a GNU/Linux-specific one.