From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19890 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2004 22:51:14 -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 19806 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2004 22:51:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Dec 2004 22:51:04 -0000 Received: from zaretski (IGLD-83-130-247-149.inter.net.il [83.130.247.149]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.5-GR) with ESMTP id DHS13657 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:50:01 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:01:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Daniel Jacobowitz Message-ID: <01c4df0a$Blat.v2.2.2$c04f3560@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: jjohnstn@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20041210133116.GA11060@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:31:16 -0500) Subject: Re: [RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <41B8E16D.6070505@redhat.com> <01c4deb2$Blat.v2.2.2$ce83b6e0@zahav.net.il> <20041210133116.GA11060@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00280.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:31:16 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: Jeff Johnston , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 02:20:39PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Hmm... the new function insert_watchpoints_for_new_thread is called > > only by ia64_linux_new_thread. Is there any policy for functions that > > are only used by a single port? Do we care that all the other GDB > > builds will get a useless function compiled into them? Should we > > perhaps #ifdef it away conditioned on some symbol? > > Let's not. Conditional compilation is bad... I asked several questions. It sounds like you only replied to the last one. If possible, I'd like to hear opinions or official policy, if there is one, on the other questions. > However, I think ia64_linux_new_thread's use should be taken as an > example. If I understand Jeff's patch correctly, a number of other > targets with hardware watchpoints will need it also. Which ones, and how do they get along now?