From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5072 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2007 14:04:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 5060 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Sep 2007 14:04:14 -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; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:04:12 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF89B982AD; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:04:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D519812E; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:04:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IZ5ab-0001nb-Jd; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:04:09 -0400 Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:04:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc, rfa/doc] Multi-threaded watchpoint improvements Message-ID: <20070922140409.GB6285@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070916183949.GA23966@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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/msg00299.txt.bz2 On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 11:03:43AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Thanks (and sorry for the delay in reviewing: it was a busy week). No problem - I appreciate your looking at it! > The old text clearly separated the description of what GDB does for > data-write watchpoints from what it does for date-read/data-access > watchpoints. The new text confuses things, because it doesn't keep > that separation. I suggest to rephrase the last paragraph as follows: I like your version. > watched value has changed. Watchpoints whose watched values has > changed are announced as hit. "have changed", right? > Also, I don't understand the purpose of this sentence: > > > +@value{GDBN} only supports process-wide watchpoints. > > "Process-wide watchpoints'' as opposed to what? As opposed to thread-specific watchpoints. We can make a watchpoint act like it is thread-specific (or we will be able to once Luis's patch is done), but we don't support setting hardware watchpoints that only trigger in a specific thread. Yet, anyway. > Is this perhaps the opposite of ``process-wide watchpoints''? If so, > it sounds like a contradiction: first you say we don't support > per-thread watchpoints, then you say we do (for some platforms). > > What am I missing here? This is how I implement a process-wide watchpoint -- which is what the core target-independent parts of GDB support -- using thread-specific watchpoint registers supported by i386 GNU/Linux. Does that clarify? Something like "process-wide watchpoints, which trigger in all threads"? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery