From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17482 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2004 16:56:14 -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 17374 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2004 16:56:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 11 Dec 2004 16:56:08 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-203-109.inter.net.il [80.230.203.109]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.5-GR) with ESMTP id DHU74769 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:54:46 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:30:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Daniel Jacobowitz Message-ID: <01c4dfa2$Blat.v2.2.2$486cc380@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: jjohnstn@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20041211161136.GA13865@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:11:37 -0500) Subject: Re: [RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <41B8E16D.6070505@redhat.com> <20041210191015.GA18430@nevyn.them.org> <01c4df0c$Blat.v2.2.2$244dda20@zahav.net.il> <20041210230603.GA23419@nevyn.them.org> <01c4df10$Blat.v2.2.2$6f63d1a0@zahav.net.il> <20041210233700.GA24439@nevyn.them.org> <01c4df73$Blat.v2.2.2$5e13b740@zahav.net.il> <20041211161136.GA13865@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00304.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 11:11:37 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > 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.