Re: [RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch

Eli Zaretskii
2005-02-11T17:11:43Z

> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:58:39 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
>
> > >>>1) Wait for my target vector inheritance patch to go in. Have the
> > >>>target override either to_wait or to_resume - probably to_resume. In
> > >>>the overridden version, iterate over all LWPs and make sure
> > >>>watchpoints are correctly inserted for them all. Disadvantage: we
> > >>>shouldn't need to iterate over the entire LWP list for this. But there
> > >>>are enough places in GDB that don't scale easily to huge LWP lists that
> > >>>I can't imagine this one being a problem in the next ten years.
> > >>>
> > >>>2) Provide a GNU/Linux specific hook, not using the observer mechanism,
> > >>>in the same way we've been connecting architectures to other individual
> > >>>modules of GDB. Implement linux_set_new_thread_watchpoints_callback,
> > >>>which would be functionally similar to this observer, but have a better
> > >>>defined purpose and use.
> > >>>
> > >>>Are either of these better?
> > >>
> > >>Either one of them is better.
> > >
> > >
> > >Great! Jeff, Mark, do you have opinions on either (or other
> > >suggestions)?
> > >
> > >Observe, we're back to the core question of the role of observers here.
> > >I prefer #2 to #1. But #2 is _functionally_ equivalent to providing an
> > >observer named linux_enable_watchpoints_for_new_threads. In one case
> > >it would have to be documented in observers.texi and support functions
> > >would be autogenerated; in the other case it would probably be
> > >documented in comments, and bunch of support functions would have to be
> > >written by hand, instead of being generated by the observers shell script.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, I should have responded to this ages ago. I prefer #2. I assume
> > the hook resides in the target vector or have you got some other idea in
> > mind?
>
> I believe I was waiting for further feedback from Eli on the role of
> observers within GDB.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but the above 2 alternatives don't use
observers. And since these are Linux-specific issues, I left it to
Daniel and you to select the best alternative.

In other words, I don't think you need any input from me to decide how
to solve this. Am I missing something?