From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14939 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2004 01:28:41 -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 14868 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2004 01:28:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 11 Dec 2004 01:28:38 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ccw3q-0007CK-94; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:28:38 -0500 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 02:04:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jeff Johnston , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch Message-ID: <20041211012838.GA27619@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jeff Johnston , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <41B8E16D.6070505@redhat.com> <20041210191015.GA18430@nevyn.them.org> <41BA00E1.20900@redhat.com> <20041210203729.GA7830@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041210203729.GA7830@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00289.txt.bz2 On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 03:37:29PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Please fix the whitespace at the end of s390-nat.c. Otherwise, this is > approved if Ulrich is OK with the S390 bits; let's give him a chance to > comment. Let's hold off while we discuss the observers issue. Jeff, I've been thinking about this patch, and another problem occured to me. You're using a "new thread" event, but you're not iterating over threads - you're iterating over LWPs. So whether or not we want to use an observer for this action, it's in the wrong conceptual place; on recent systems we should be able to debug multi-threaded programs that do not use libpthread with some degree of success. TLS won't work, of course, since that's library-supported... but most of the rest of what libthread_db is not necessary. The code for this on the GDB side is not completely in place yet but I'm working up to it - that's one of the goals of the revamped Linux target_ops. -- Daniel Jacobowitz