From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8399 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2004 19:08:24 -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 8391 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2004 19:08:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 11 Dec 2004 19:08:21 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CdCbM-0004bH-Ns; Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:08:20 -0500 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: jjohnstn@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch Message-ID: <20041211190820.GB17243@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , jjohnstn@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20041210191015.GA18430@nevyn.them.org> <41BA00E1.20900@redhat.com> <20041210203729.GA7830@nevyn.them.org> <41BA168E.7030507@redhat.com> <41BA36C5.2030304@redhat.com> <01c4df75$Blat.v2.2.2$1a340140@zahav.net.il> <20041211165237.GC13865@nevyn.them.org> <01c4dfaa$Blat.v2.2.2$47bcb3c0@zahav.net.il> <20041211180236.GA16131@nevyn.them.org> <01c4dfb4$Blat.v2.2.2$a0ae47a0@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c4dfb4$Blat.v2.2.2$a0ae47a0@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00317.txt.bz2 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 > > 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