Re: [RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch

Jeff Johnston
2004-12-10T19:04:47Z

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 18:36:13 -0500
>>From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
>>
>>The following is a modified version of my thread watchpoint patch from
>>October/November. It removes the code I had used to switch between lwp ptids
>>and thread ptids now that Daniel's lwp patch is in place. It uses the former
>>version of my observer that is linux-specific and is activated in attach_thread
>>in linux-thread-db.c. Eli, I renamed the observer as asked to indicate this.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>> * breakpoint.c (insert_watchpoints_for_new_thread): New function.
>> (print_it_typical): Do not issue an error for bp_thread_event
>> if a subsequent event is on the chain.
>> * breakpoint.h (insert_watchpoints_for_new_thread): New prototype.
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>>+@deftypefun void linux_new_thread (ptid_t @var{ptid})
>>+A new linux thread described by @var{ptid} has been officially attached
>>+to by gdb.
>>+@end deftypefun
>
>
> What does it mean ``officially attached''? Can a thread be attached
> to ``unofficially''?
>

I'm referring to the act of gdb recognizing the thread. The function itself is
called attach_thread but it has a #ifdef governing whether a low-level ATTACH is
required or not. Gdb now recognizes it has "attached" to the thread whether a
physical attach is needed or not. I can drop the "officially" qualifier if it
is confusing.

-- Jeff J.