From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 811 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2007 15:23:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 32754 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Aug 2007 15:23:26 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw1.br.ibm.com (HELO igw1.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:23:15 +0000 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com (mailhub1 [9.18.232.109]) by igw1.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 662551480B0 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:06:22 -0300 (BRT) Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.47]) by mailhub1.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id l7KFNC1n991442 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:23:12 -0300 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l7KFNBaW000405 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:23:12 -0300 Received: from [9.18.238.24] ([9.18.238.24]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l7KFNAT3000365; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:23:11 -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: <20070820142141.GA18034@caradoc.them.org> References: <1187298178.5853.11.camel@localhost> <1187365616.4520.14.camel@localhost> <20070817184953.GA1747@caradoc.them.org> <1187618630.4974.5.camel@localhost> <20070820142141.GA18034@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:23:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1187623389.11176.5.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/msg00394.txt.bz2 Hi, > Consider: in the current status quo the watchpoint would be inserted > in every thread, using up precious hardware debug resources and > triggering unnecessarily. We'll just resume in threads other than the > indicated one, so we shouldn't set up the watchpoint anywhere else. Makes sense. So instead of having GDB insert watchpoints in all the threads, we would insert it just in the one we specified in the command. That could make use of the changes to the watchpoint command, but then we're discarding Jeff's patches, right? We would also need to do that cleanup in each thread's debugging registers due to the kernel cloning the debug registers' values from the parent process. Regards, -- Luis Machado Software Engineer IBM Linux Technology Center e-mail: luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com