From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16589 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2008 03:02:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 16581 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jul 2008 03:02:06 -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, 26 Jul 2008 03:01:46 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C19498215; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 03:01:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 025F19809F; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 03:01:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KMa2H-0005ro-Qm; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:01:34 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 03:02:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Emi SUZUKI Cc: pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] thread specific breakpoints and single stepping Message-ID: <20080726030133.GC1895@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Emi SUZUKI , pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080708.114916.68479315.emi-suzuki@tjsys.co.jp> <200807082105.02583.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20080709.211038.135588294.emi-suzuki@tjsys.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080709.211038.135588294.emi-suzuki@tjsys.co.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-07/txt/msg00468.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 09:10:38PM +0900, Emi SUZUKI wrote: > It works better than mine. But while I am concerning about > single-stepping for software watchpoints, I noticed that we should > also check whether a hardware watchpoint is triggered. As this condition gets more complicated, I'm getting worried about keeping it in sync with everything else. Could it be that the logic is wrong - we should determine whether a thread hop is necessary later in the process? It should be just like a breakpoint with a false condition. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery