From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 826 invoked by alias); 1 May 2008 19:50:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 814 invoked by uid 22791); 1 May 2008 19:50:27 -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; Thu, 01 May 2008 19:50:02 +0000 Received: from mailhub3.br.ibm.com (mailhub3 [9.18.232.110]) by igw2.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2B617F4EE for ; Thu, 1 May 2008 16:39:55 -0300 (BRST) 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 v8.7) with ESMTP id m41Jo0Kj4182208 for ; Thu, 1 May 2008 16:50:00 -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 m41JnwDE007017 for ; Thu, 1 May 2008 16:49:59 -0300 Received: from [9.8.5.197] ([9.8.5.197]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m41Jnw50006991 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 May 2008 16:49:58 -0300 Subject: Re: [rfc, rfa/doc] Multi-threaded watchpoint improvements From: Luis Machado Reply-To: luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Andreas Schwab , gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20080416224910.GA3716@caradoc.them.org> References: <20070916183949.GA23966@caradoc.them.org> <20071001002015.GA15835@caradoc.them.org> <20080416224910.GA3716@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 19:50:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1209671399.7131.16.camel@gargoyle> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 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: 2008-05/txt/msg00032.txt.bz2 Hi, > Luis reported some problems, too (last October). The discussion > trailed off waiting for him to look at it further. I also tested on a > PowerPC system before committing the patch, so it's got to be some > combination of factors that didn't show up on my target. Sorry i'm late on this. The problem i originally reported to Daniel back then was actually a typo that happened in his patch, thus the hardware watchpoint wasn't triggering at all. This happened because the address wasn't being set. It was a quick fix. Thanks for the improvement Andreas. Best regards, Luis