From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25178 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2011 19:56:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 25169 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Dec 2011 19:56:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,SARE_RECV_IP_082154 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-iy0-f169.google.com) (209.85.210.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:56:38 +0000 Received: by iacb35 with SMTP id b35so5344904iac.0 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:56:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.160.134 with SMTP id xk6mr16951648igb.59.1324151798359; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:56:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from scottsdale.localnet (bl6-167-28.dsl.telepac.pt. [82.155.167.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 36sm47691958ibc.6.2011.12.17.11.56.35 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:56:36 -0800 (PST) From: Pedro Alves To: Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: [patch] s390*: watchpoints regression [repost] Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:13:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-13-generic; KDE/4.7.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20111217094753.GA20113@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20111217194412.GA15107@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20111217194454.GA15156@host2.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20111217194454.GA15156@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201112171956.33037.alves.ped@gmail.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: 2011-12/txt/msg00582.txt.bz2 On Saturday 17 December 2011 19:44:54, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:40:13 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > > In the loop that runs through the shell, fork-child.c:startup_inferior, > > nothing inserts breakpoints/watchpoints. So nothing ends up > > setting lwp->arch_private->debug_registers_changed, and so we should > > not be setting DR_CONTROL to 0 for the wrapper shell. Do you > > actually see it happen? > > I see it happenning. [attached] Ah, I forgot this: static void i386_linux_new_thread (struct lwp_info *lp) { struct arch_lwp_info *info = XCNEW (struct arch_lwp_info); info->debug_registers_changed = 1; lp->arch_private = info; } Hmm. I'm starting to think that the easiest is jut to go back at not calling new_thread for the first thread. Let me give that a try. -- Pedro Alves