From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19688 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2004 01:04:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19662 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2004 01:04:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Nov 2004 01:04:26 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CRKQr-0008Hu-C3; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:04:25 -0500 Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 01:04:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Jeff Johnston , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: Watchpoints per thread patch Message-ID: <20041109010425.GA31431@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Jeff Johnston , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <4175A9C9.8040300@redhat.com> <41769FF3.7010801@gnu.org> <20041020173035.GA26622@nevyn.them.org> <418022DE.204@redhat.com> <01c4bca9$Blat.v2.2.2$adcffb00@zahav.net.il> <418A741C.4080306@redhat.com> <20041105044917.GA13554@nevyn.them.org> <418BAFC9.6050705@gnu.org> <20041105182850.GA22533@nevyn.them.org> <418FE5E7.3070501@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <418FE5E7.3070501@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00142.txt.bz2 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* I don't think that "we have too many other plans" is a reason to accept obviously broken code, which abuses the observer mechanism and would make further cleanups of the breakpoint code and target stack more difficult. On top of that, we've already _started_ on i18n, DW_OP_piece, and refactoring the GNU/Linux code base from that list. So I think it's actually pretty likely that the refactoring will get done. Compare to multiarching solib and breakpoints on inline functions, neither of which has had any progress in some years. Sorry, Jeff. If we want this feature for GDB 6.4, then we'll have to get there the normal way. I think we can do it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz