Re: [RFA]: Watchpoints per thread patch

Andrew Cagney
2004-11-08T21:33:21Z

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 11:52:25AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>
>>>I don't want to add target_get_lwp only to remove it a couple weeks
>>>later! I don't think this patch is appropriate for 6.3; for the
>>>mainline, we have plenty of time, so please wait a little longer.
>>
>>You're correct, it definitly isn't appropriate for 6.3. However, it is
>>appropriate for mainline. Lets get this patch off the table (and have
>>working watchpoints), that way we're in a position to better focus on
>>just the refactorings you talk of. Especially since, this work gives us
>>a working test case that we can refactor against.
>>
>>Sound reasonable?
>
>
> Andrew, I'm confused. Aren't you the maintainer who is historically
> most likely to jump on contributors for kludging around missing
> infrastructure? I think we should solve this correctly, not with (so
> far) two majorly incorrect hacks.
>
> And we've already got working watchpoints. This is for multi-threaded
> hardware watchpoints, which have never worked right in GDB and thus
> seem to me like a new feature.

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.

Andrew