From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18748 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2009 01:33:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 18736 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Nov 2009 01:33:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:32:38 +0000 Received: (qmail 10593 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2009 01:32:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 20 Nov 2009 01:32:37 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: Don't delete local watchpoints just because a different thread stopped. Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:33:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200911190207.02432.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200911200030.50194.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20091120011305.GA9797@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20091120011305.GA9797@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200911200132.35922.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00427.txt.bz2 On Friday 20 November 2009 01:13:06, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > 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. At least on linux, the other watchpoint hit will be left pending, and so will be reported on the next resume, so it doesn't seem worth it to bother much with that. -- Pedro Alves