From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1871 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2006 12:53:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 1862 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jul 2006 12:53:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:53:19 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1G7XGi-0000Qp-PF; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:53:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:53:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Frederic RISS Cc: Andreas Schwab , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] New threadnum command for breakpoints Message-ID: <20060731125311.GA1272@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Frederic RISS , Andreas Schwab , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <1154093921.28300.236.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> <1154093921.28300.236.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> <20060728141339.GA15103@nevyn.them.org> <1154098563.28300.282.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> <20060728151434.GA17238@nevyn.them.org> <1154334744.28300.302.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1154334744.28300.302.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-07/txt/msg00425.txt.bz2 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