From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15854 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2007 14:28:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 15835 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Aug 2007 14:28:34 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw2.br.ibm.com (HELO igw2.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:28:21 +0000 Received: from mailhub3.br.ibm.com (mailhub3 [9.18.232.110]) by igw2.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BBBB5BDE5 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:16:44 -0300 (BRT) Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.46]) by mailhub3.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id l7KE7xko1495224 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:28:17 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l7KE3xgY030884 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:04:15 -0300 Received: from [9.18.238.24] ([9.18.238.24]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l7KE3o49030310; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:03:53 -0300 Subject: Re: [patch] Watchpoints: support for thread parameters From: Luis Machado Reply-To: luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20070817184953.GA1747@caradoc.them.org> References: <1187298178.5853.11.camel@localhost> <1187365616.4520.14.camel@localhost> <20070817184953.GA1747@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:28:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1187618630.4974.5.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00393.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 14:49 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 09:41:38PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Is this all that needs to be done to have thread-specific watchpoints? > > Do they work after this patch as you want them to? > > In my opinion, not really. On some systems, you can tell the target > layer which threads the watchpoint should be inserted for and spare > yourself extra stops in "wrong" threads. What do you have in mind regarding the whole feature? Will we head towards a different solution? -- Luis Machado Software Engineer IBM Linux Technology Center e-mail: luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com