From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8142 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2007 21:15:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 8004 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Aug 2007 21:15:33 -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; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:15:24 +0000 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com (mailhub1 [9.18.232.109]) by igw1.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9F514803F for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:58:20 -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 l7NLFLOj1532034 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:15:21 -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 l7NLFKwI010244 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:15:21 -0300 Received: from [9.18.203.94] ([9.18.203.94]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l7NLFIfM010201; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:15:20 -0300 Subject: Re: [patch] Watchpoints: support for thread parameters From: Luis Machado Reply-To: luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20070823211202.GM7552@adacore.com> 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> <1187623389.11176.5.camel@localhost> <20070820152912.GA32555@caradoc.them.org> <20070823211202.GM7552@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:15:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1187903715.5106.19.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/msg00456.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 17:12 -0400, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > 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? > > > > No, this still requires Jeff's patches as a starting point. I hope > > to respond to them today. > > Another reason why I believe these patches would still be necessary > is the fact that some targets might not support thread-specific > hardware watchpoints, right? > For that case it's a good idea to have something like the additional parameter. In time, which ones have such behaviour? Best regards, -- Luis Machado Software Engineer IBM Linux Technology Center e-mail: luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com