From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20912 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2011 20:34:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 20582 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Dec 2011 20:34:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:34:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBCKYDMi029160 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:34:13 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-39.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.39]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBCKY9dk006240 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:34:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:39:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR threads/10729: x86 hw watchpoints and non-stop mode Message-ID: <20111212203409.GA28419@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <201112051601.59664.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20111212172238.GA7737@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20111212183734.GA24356@host2.jankratochvil.net> <201112122030.25365.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201112122030.25365.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2011-12/txt/msg00355.txt.bz2 On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:30:25 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > so it seems there's no point in trying to retain all the other > bits of DR_STATUS. I agree and I agree with this patch part. (I do not agree for example with the lwp->stopped_by_watchpoint part as multiple watchpoints may get hit on one stop which isn't handled well but that is out of the scope of this discussion.) Thanks, Jan