Re: [RFC] New threadnum command for breakpoints

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:32:24AM +0200, Frederic RISS wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 11:14 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 04:56:03PM +0200, Frederic RISS wrote:
> > >  * infrun.c detects breakpoint thread mismatch early and has code to
> > > handle thread hops correctly. This code won't be used in case the thread
> > > mismatch is detected only in the breakpoint condition. Couldn't that
> > > cause some problems? (If it's not an issue, we could certainly cleanup
> > > handle_inferior_event to remove that code)
> > 
> > It could probably be rearranged to only happen late.
> 
> I must be missing something. If thread hops have to be handled
> separately, you must be able to distinguish a condition that indicates
> 'wrong thread' from another that just says 'wrong condition', no?
> 
> Or maybe by 'happen late' you mean later in time and not later in the
> code... but still I don't see how we could keep the current code
> semantics.

I have the feeling we could treat "wrong thread" and "wrong condition"
exactly identically, and everything would still work.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery