Re: [RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 09:06:12PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 13:02:36 -0500
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > Cc: jjohnstn@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> > 
> > > Another, even better (IMHO) rationale: one important reason for using
> > > watchpoints is to find what code accesses some specific data; when we
> > > use watchpoints for this, we more often than not do not know what
> > > thread will access the data.
> > 
> > That's just a watchpoint without an explicit thread specified.  That's
> > the default when you say "watch foo".
> 
> Yes, but what is the difference between unexpected thread and any
> thread?  In practice, it means you will need to stop on any thread,
> right?

Right.  I was thinking about the tiny bit of code needed to detect
that a watchpoint + hitting thread combination that the user doesn't
care about has caused this stop, and quietly resume the inferior.

It sounds like we're in agreement again :-)

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz