From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23973 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2004 23:37:13 -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 23853 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2004 23:37:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Dec 2004 23:37:05 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CcuJo-0006OO-Ds; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:37:00 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:52:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: jjohnstn@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch Message-ID: <20041210233700.GA24439@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , jjohnstn@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <41B8E16D.6070505@redhat.com> <20041210191015.GA18430@nevyn.them.org> <01c4df0c$Blat.v2.2.2$244dda20@zahav.net.il> <20041210230603.GA23419@nevyn.them.org> <01c4df10$Blat.v2.2.2$6f63d1a0@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c4df10$Blat.v2.2.2$6f63d1a0@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00285.txt.bz2 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