From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2455 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2011 20:35:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 2218 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Dec 2011 20:35:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,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; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:35:10 +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 pBHKZ7Yi020964 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 17 Dec 2011 15:35:07 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-60.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.60]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBHKZ33q002374 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 17 Dec 2011 15:35:06 -0500 Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:08:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] s390*: watchpoints regression [repost] Message-ID: <20111217203503.GA27515@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20111217094753.GA20113@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20111217194454.GA15156@host2.jankratochvil.net> <201112171956.33037.alves.ped@gmail.com> <201112172012.57734.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201112172012.57734.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/msg00584.txt.bz2 On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:12:57 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Saturday 17 December 2011 19:56:32, Pedro Alves wrote: > > 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. > > Seems to work fine. This should obsolete the s390 patch. I can confirm it fixes both the x86* DR set for wrapper and the s390 regression. > --- a/gdb/linux-nat.c > +++ b/gdb/linux-nat.c > @@ -1151,7 +1151,7 @@ add_lwp (ptid_t ptid) > lp->next = lwp_list; > lwp_list = lp; > > - if (linux_nat_new_thread != NULL) > + if (num_lwps (GET_PID (ptid)) > 1 && linux_nat_new_thread != NULL) > linux_nat_new_thread (lp); > > return lp; After this regression churn and all the discussion around I believe this line is worth some comment, like I wrote in the previous s390* patch. That num_lwps there is very magic. Thanks, Jan