From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12881 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2004 20:50:41 -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 12869 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2004 20:50:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Nov 2004 20:50:35 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CRcwk-0002Il-1y; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 15:50:34 -0500 Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:50:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jeff Johnston Cc: Andrew Cagney , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: Watchpoints per thread patch Message-ID: <20041109205034.GA8805@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jeff Johnston , Andrew Cagney , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <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> <4191151F.6070607@redhat.com> <20041109193124.GA4085@nevyn.them.org> <41912D20.6090706@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41912D20.6090706@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00179.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 03:48:32PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 02:06:07PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote: > > > >>Time out here for a second. I have been modifying this patch according > >>to "your" comments. I have had a design that had no observers and one > >>that kept the observation isolated to the linux code. > > > > > >The design without observers had plenty of other problems, e.g. it also > >broke remote debugging. > > > >My suggestion about putting the observer in add_thread was a bad one. > >I've never claimed to be an infallible lord of development. A > >new_thread observer does indeed belong in add_thread, but is not > >suitable for your use; and I didn't understand why until later. > > > > Fair enough, but it was certainly uncalled for to categorize my patch(s) as > "crap" as I was attempting to implement your suggested changes. I think it was entirely called for; it just reflected as much upon my suggestion as on your patch. I apologize for giving bad advice. -- Daniel Jacobowitz