From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2354 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2007 18:29:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 2345 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Sep 2007 18:29:31 -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 18:29:26 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FDF298308; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:29:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E6F9812E; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:29:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IUo0g-0004u4-Tg; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:29:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:29:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 0/1] Threaded Watchpoints Message-ID: <20070910182922.GA18690@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070910002103.GA25048@caradoc.them.org> <200709101822.l8AIMuZG011855@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200709101822.l8AIMuZG011855@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> 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/msg00141.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 08:22:56PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Was the change to remove use of HAVE_CONTINUABLE_WATCHPOINTS deliberate? > It used to be that you had to set one of the three flags in order to > activate the watchpoint logic at all, but your new code will always > call STOPPED_BY_WATCHPOINT. Yes - do you think I shouldn't? Easy enough to put it back. > +static void > +s390_resume (ptid_t ptid, int step, enum target_signal signal) > +{ > + if (linux_nat_lwp_is_new (ptid)) > + s390_fix_watch_points (ptid); > + super_resume (ptid, step, signal); > +} > > This assumes that the new thread's ptid will always be passed to the > resume. Is this necessarily the case? I would expect ptid to be -1 > in most cases ... It is necessarily the case. This function is never called through target_resume, only through linux_nat_resume. This was one of the big cleanups that made my patch possible. > I did a full test on s390-ibm-linux and s390x-ibm-linux, and it works > fine. There are no longer any FAILs reported for watchthreads.exp. Thanks a lot! -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery