From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29872 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2007 15:44:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 29863 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Sep 2007 15:44:51 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:44:45 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DECB998308; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:44:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D989812E; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:44:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IUlRL-0002eK-Ja; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:44:43 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:44:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Luis Machado Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 0/1] Threaded Watchpoints Message-ID: <20070910154443.GA10167@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1187013078.4346.9.camel@localhost> <1187631217.11176.8.camel@localhost> <1187631568.11176.11.camel@localhost> <20070905020350.GA10025@caradoc.them.org> <1188995481.4879.5.camel@localhost> <20070910002103.GA25048@caradoc.them.org> <1189438454.4318.9.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1189438454.4318.9.camel@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2007-09/txt/msg00138.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 12:34:14PM -0300, Luis Machado wrote: > > I've regression tested i386, amd64, and ia64. I tested S/390 by hand > > and it works, but the extra logic in watchthreads.exp for that > > platform hasn't been tested (no DejaGNU or expect on my test system). > > I couldn't build the code for ppc due to a call to the "save_siginfo" > function. Why is exactly that function's been moved to "linux-nat.c"? It > seems that it's being called only in that file, and with a PPC-specific > ptrace request "PTRACE_GETSIGINFO", which is not declared anywhere > except for "ppc-linux-nat.c". > > Could you please clarify this specific point? PTRACE_GETSIGINFO is not specific to PowerPC. It's architecture-independent (although somewhat recent); IA-64 uses it for watchpoints just like PowerPC does. If your system headers are not new enough to define it, the definition from ppc-linux-nat.c should probably move to linux-nat.c too. If that doesn't help, could you show me the error message? Thanks. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery