From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22249 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2007 21:08:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 22208 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Aug 2007 21:08:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:07:58 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E69C2AA6DD; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:07:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id jEu8S0YtUqvN; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:07:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F692AA6D0; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:07:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 889DBE7B58; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:12:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:08:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Luis Machado , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Watchpoints: support for thread parameters Message-ID: <20070823211202.GM7552@adacore.com> References: <1187298178.5853.11.camel@localhost> <1187365616.4520.14.camel@localhost> <20070817184953.GA1747@caradoc.them.org> <1187618630.4974.5.camel@localhost> <20070820142141.GA18034@caradoc.them.org> <1187623389.11176.5.camel@localhost> <20070820152912.GA32555@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070820152912.GA32555@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00455.txt.bz2 > > Makes sense. So instead of having GDB insert watchpoints in all the > > threads, we would insert it just in the one we specified in the command. > > That could make use of the changes to the watchpoint command, but then > > we're discarding Jeff's patches, right? > > No, this still requires Jeff's patches as a starting point. I hope > to respond to them today. Another reason why I believe these patches would still be necessary is the fact that some targets might not support thread-specific hardware watchpoints, right? -- Joel