From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10370 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2009 01:14:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 10358 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Nov 2009 01:14:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:13:09 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910B41088A; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:13:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 721751086A; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:13:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NBI3e-0002Yt-2S; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:13:06 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:14:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Don't delete local watchpoints just because a different thread stopped. Message-ID: <20091120011305.GA9797@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200911190207.02432.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20091119174539.GA24336@caradoc.them.org> <200911200030.50194.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200911200030.50194.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-11/txt/msg00426.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:30:50AM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Thursday 19 November 2009 17:45:39, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > For all-stop, do we want to check whenever the watchpoint's thread is > > stopped? > > Yep (non-stop), good catch. Usually we'd get here with a stopped > thread, but there's always say, No, I really meant all-stop. Suppose one thread hits a breakpoint, and another thread hits a watchpoint while we're trying to stop it. Is there any reason not to temporarily switch threads to check? Or any reason to, for that matter - I'm not sure. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery