Re: [RFA]: Watchpoints per thread patch

Andrew Cagney
2004-11-09T15:11:04Z

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 09:19:25PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 04:32:23PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Given our already overcommitted backlog: breakpoints on C++
>>>>constructors, breakpoints on inline code, DW_OP_piece, i18n, multi-arch
>>>>solib, ....; how realistic is it that we'll, in addition, manage to both
>>>>refactor the linux code base (I know this will be slow as I've been
>>>>working on it) and also add multi-threaded watchpoints, all in the 6.4
>>>>time frame?
>>>>
>>>>Let concentrate on clearing existing backlog, and not add another
>>>>promise to the list.
>>>
>>>
>>>*sarcasm*
>>>
>>>You're right. That's an excellent plan. Let's just drop the
>>>multithreaded watchpoint patch, then, if it will never make it
>>>to the front of the backlog.
>>
>>>*sarcasm off*
>>
>>Looks like I touched a raw nerve, eh?
>>
>>Well let me touch another one. Ask any serious developer trying to use
>>GDB and they'll tell you bluntly ``we sux'', and the things I listed
>>(along with multi-threaded watchpoints) are why ``we sux''.
>>
>>Can we sux a lttle less and at least support multi-threaded watchpoints?
>
>
> Yes, you touched a raw nerve. You touched a raw nerve where you are
> attempting to hold contributions from different contributors to
> different standards. For instance, you blocked vsyscall support for
> months because you objected to the quality and design of the code; I
> felt it was of satisfactory quality, but you and I already know that we
> disagree about many aspects of software design.

Er, my objection to vsyscall was technical. Attach didn't work then,
does it work now? No, so we've got a cludge.

Andrew