Re: [RFA]: Watchpoints per thread patch

Jeff Johnston
2004-10-28T20:13:49Z

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 03:47:22PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>
>>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 07:17:13PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Were you thinking of add_thread()? If so, we would have to move the
>>>>calls to add_thread so they never occur before an attach because the
>>>>low-level observers will need the thread already attached.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, that's a good point. Do you think that's a reasonable change to
>>>make?
>>>
>>
>>It is a can of worms. I can move the add_thread call in attach_thread
>>easily enough, but there are other calls to add_thread strewn about. For
>>example, corelow.c calls add_thread as does infrun.c when it finds a new
>>process. I certainly don't see it being valid for either of these
>>scenarios to insert/remove all watchpoints. My personal preference would
>>be to leave it where it is for now.
>
>
> There are two separate questions here:
> - When do we need to be adding and removing watchpoints from threads
> on GNU/Linux?
> - When should an observer named "new_thread" be called?
>
> If it's not valid to do the former action at all the latter points,
> then it's not the right observer to be using.
>

It could easily be called new_linux_thread or new_lwp_thread.

> The code in infrun is never reached for native GNU/Linux threads, btw;
> I'm not sure which targets if any do reach it. I don't believe remote
> GNU/Linux threads do either.
>

If you feel that add_thread will be safe in other scenarios, I am more than
happy to do the change, but I will only be testing linux.

-- Jeff J.