From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14252 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2007 17:56:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 14238 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Sep 2007 17:56:50 -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, 10 Sep 2007 17:56:37 +0000 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com (mailhub1 [9.18.232.109]) by igw2.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E1717F4EA for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:54:52 -0300 (BRT) Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.46]) by mailhub1.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id l8AHuWC51437916 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:56:32 -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 l8AHuWQe030895 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:56:32 -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 l8AHuUPv030854; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:56:32 -0300 Subject: Re: [patch 0/1] Threaded Watchpoints From: Luis Machado Reply-To: luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20070910154443.GA10167@caradoc.them.org> References: <1187013078.4346.9.camel@localhost> <1187631217.11176.8.camel@localhost> <1187631568.11176.11.camel@localhost> <20070905020350.GA10025@caradoc.them.org> <1188995481.4879.5.camel@localhost> <20070910002103.GA25048@caradoc.them.org> <1189438454.4318.9.camel@localhost> <20070910154443.GA10167@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:56:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1189446990.4318.21.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: 2007-09/txt/msg00139.txt.bz2 Hi, > If that doesn't help, could you show me the error message? Thanks. Yes, that does it, though it doesn't look right to have that definition moved to "linux-nat.c". But i might have outdated include files (when were they changed?), so the current code should be fine except for this particular piece: ==== code ==== static int -ppc_linux_stopped_by_watchpoint (void) +ppc_linux_stopped_data_address (struct target_ops *target, CORE_ADDR *addr_p) { - int tid; - struct siginfo siginfo; - ptid_t ptid = inferior_ptid; + struct siginfo *siginfo_p; CORE_ADDR *addr_p; - tid = TIDGET(ptid); - if (tid == 0) - tid = PIDGET (ptid); === code === We should get rid of the locally-defined "addr_p" since it's already being passed as a parameter by "stopped_data_address". I've built GDB, tried to insert a watchpoint after creating 10 threads and the those threads triggered correctly. As for the testcases, since PPC only supports one hardware watchpoint per process, we should work that test case in a different way or mark it as unsupported for PPC and write a different test case. Regards, -- Luis Machado IBM Linux Technology Center e-mail: luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com