From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15374 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2004 18:41:41 -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 15348 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2004 18:41:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Nov 2004 18:41:34 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CRavo-0003Xe-Uo; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:41:29 -0500 Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:41:00 -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: <20041109184128.GA13359@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Jeff Johnston , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <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> <20041109010425.GA31431@nevyn.them.org> <4190292D.5070103@gnu.org> <20041109023306.GA1797@nevyn.them.org> <4190DDC8.5050004@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4190DDC8.5050004@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00167.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 10:10:00AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >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. My objections to this patch are also technical. A non-technical objection would be "I don't like Jeff's hairstyle, so I'm rejecting this patch". "This is a terrible abuse of the observer mechanism" is a technical objection. As for vsyscall, my memory may be faulty. It happens to me a lot lately. I was thinking of the delay while the observers mechanism was extended, and the partial xfer mechanism created. What do you mean by "attach doesn't work now"? -- Daniel Jacobowitz