From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3569 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2004 23:10:30 -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 3450 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2004 23:10:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Dec 2004 23:10:23 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1Cctu2-00068z-3C; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:10:22 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:31:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: jjohnstn@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch Message-ID: <20041210231022.GB23419@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , jjohnstn@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <41B8E16D.6070505@redhat.com> <01c4deb2$Blat.v2.2.2$ce83b6e0@zahav.net.il> <20041210133116.GA11060@nevyn.them.org> <01c4df0a$Blat.v2.2.2$c04f3560@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c4df0a$Blat.v2.2.2$c04f3560@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00283.txt.bz2 On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 12:50:11AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:31:16 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Cc: Jeff Johnston , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 02:20:39PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Hmm... the new function insert_watchpoints_for_new_thread is called > > > only by ia64_linux_new_thread. Is there any policy for functions that > > > are only used by a single port? Do we care that all the other GDB > > > builds will get a useless function compiled into them? Should we > > > perhaps #ifdef it away conditioned on some symbol? > > > > Let's not. Conditional compilation is bad... > > I asked several questions. It sounds like you only replied to the > last one. (1) I don't know of any policy. (2) Well, I don't care. I think it's relatively harmless and we already include a large number of "useless" functions to simplify design. (3) We've been trying to move away from conditional compilation within core files for several years, if I understand correctly. > If possible, I'd like to hear opinions or official policy, if there is > one, on the other questions. GDB does not have much in the way of "official" policy. This is the closest thing from gdbint: @cindex portability Insertion of new @code{#ifdef}'s will be frowned upon. It's much better to write the code portably than to conditionalize it for various systems. > > However, I think ia64_linux_new_thread's use should be taken as an > > example. If I understand Jeff's patch correctly, a number of other > > targets with hardware watchpoints will need it also. > > Which ones, and how do they get along now? They don't work. I don't know any target on which multi-threaded watchpoints work; do you? -- Daniel Jacobowitz