Re: [RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch

Eli Zaretskii
2004-12-10T22:51:14Z

> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:31:16 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>, 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.

If possible, I'd like to hear opinions or official policy, if there is
one, on the other questions.

> 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?