From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13221 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2007 18:54:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 13213 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Sep 2007 18:54:39 -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 18:54:30 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 547DC98310; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:54:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A54598308; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:54:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IUoOx-0005JE-Nf; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:54:27 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:54:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 0/1] Threaded Watchpoints Message-ID: <20070910185427.GA20125@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070910182922.GA18690@caradoc.them.org> <200709101844.l8AIiMG3031265@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200709101844.l8AIiMG3031265@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/msg00145.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 08:44:22PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > I guess your new way makes more sense. This means we can remove > HAVE_CONTINUABLE_WATCHPOINTS completely, though. (As a related > point, I think it would be good to fix the oddity that nonsteppable > watchpoints are reported as a gdbarch property while steppable > watchpoints are reported as a target property ...) I totally agree. I just don't know which one makes more sense. Probably gdbarch but I'm sure I'll break something if I try to change it. > > > 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. > > Hmm, I see. This assumes that after every new-thread event, the new > thread is selected as inferior_ptid, though. I don't think it assumes that. s390_resume should be called once for each thread, and not depend on inferior_ptid at all; only linux_nat_resume has to check for ptid == -1, schedlocking, et cetera. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery