Re: [RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 01:30:52AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> You may recall that I objected to using observers for this in the
> first place, but my objections were voted down.  Given that, I don't
> find it useful to object to Jeff's current patch.  But I will
> encourage any attempts to refactor the watchpoint interfaces and x86
> native code to accomodate multi-threaded programs, even if in the
> meantime we approve some changes that patch around the inappropriate
> design to get thread-local watchpoints on some platforms.

By whom?  I waited to review the revised version until you had a chance
to comment on the continued use of observers.  The last conclusion I
remember from the previous discussion was that I would prefer to use
the target stack, but didn't have a strong enough preference to object
to an observer.  Jeff asked you if a renamed observer was acceptable,
and you said that it was.

If there's been a miscommunication, if you still object to this use of
the observers, please, say so now.  We can discuss alternatives.  Before
the patch goes in is the best time.

> > To get a useful level of support from the i386 watchpoint code, in
> > fact, looks pretty easy.
> 
> It may be easy, but I think we still need to talk about the design.
> The debug registers mirroring in i386-nat.c clearly assume that debug
> registers are all global.  This might not work at all with threads.

Yes, definitely that would need discussion.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz