Re: [RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch

["Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:11:37 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: jjohnstn@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> Are there really any current uses of observers which meet your
> definition above?

I'm unsure which definition you refer to.

> 1)  Wait for my target vector inheritance patch to go in.  Have the
> target override either to_wait or to_resume - probably to_resume.  In
> the overridden version, iterate over all LWPs and make sure
> watchpoints are correctly inserted for them all.  Disadvantage: we
> shouldn't need to iterate over the entire LWP list for this.  But there
> are enough places in GDB that don't scale easily to huge LWP lists that
> I can't imagine this one being a problem in the next ten years.
> 
> 2) Provide a GNU/Linux specific hook, not using the observer mechanism,
> in the same way we've been connecting architectures to other individual
> modules of GDB.  Implement linux_set_new_thread_watchpoints_callback,
> which would be functionally similar to this observer, but have a better
> defined purpose and use.
> 
> Are either of these better?

Either one of them is better.