From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14518 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2004 16:52:20 -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 14275 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2004 16:52:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO balder.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.15) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 11 Dec 2004 16:52:12 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-203-109.inter.net.il [80.230.203.109]) by balder.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.7-GR) with ESMTP id DXB82459 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:50:08 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:52:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Mark Kettenis Message-ID: <01c4dfa1$Blat.v2.2.2$a2ab98e0@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: jjohnstn@redhat.com, jjohnstn@redhat.com, drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <200412111449.iBBEn9ao007261@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (message from Mark Kettenis on Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:49:09 +0100 (CET)) Subject: Re: [RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <41B8E16D.6070505@redhat.com> <20041210191015.GA18430@nevyn.them.org> <41BA00E1.20900@redhat.com> <20041210203729.GA7830@nevyn.them.org> <41BA168E.7030507@redhat.com> <41BA36C5.2030304@redhat.com> <200412111449.iBBEn9ao007261@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00302.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:49:09 +0100 (CET) > From: Mark Kettenis > CC: jjohnstn@redhat.com, drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > there is no documentation whatsoever how watchpoints should work in > the Linux kernel. I think that, before we change GDB, we should > insists that this gets properly documented, and agreed on by the > kernel people. I agree. > What the latest RH kernel does should be mostly irrelevant to the GDB > project. What matters is what the official Linux kernel does. We > should realize that not everybody is using a kernel that was released > just a week ago. GDB should also work on older kernels (we've > previously stated that it will work on version 2.0 and later). Of > course we don't support all features on those kernels, but we > shouldn't break features that worked on those kernels before. It > seems to me the i386 watchpoint issue has a high-risk to break older > kernels. 100% agreement.