From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6897 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2004 21:33:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6864 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2004 21:33:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Nov 2004 21:33:16 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iA8LXFLm014505 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:33:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (to-dhcp51.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.151]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iA8LXFr09847; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:33:15 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A3E129D8C; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:32:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <418FE5E7.3070501@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:33:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20041020) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Jeff Johnston , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: Watchpoints per thread patch References: <4175A9C9.8040300@redhat.com> <41769FF3.7010801@gnu.org> <20041020173035.GA26622@nevyn.them.org> <418022DE.204@redhat.com> <01c4bca9$Blat.v2.2.2$adcffb00@zahav.net.il> <418A741C.4080306@redhat.com> <20041105044917.GA13554@nevyn.them.org> <418BAFC9.6050705@gnu.org> <20041105182850.GA22533@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20041105182850.GA22533@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00140.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 11:52:25AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >> >>>I don't want to add target_get_lwp only to remove it a couple weeks >>>later! I don't think this patch is appropriate for 6.3; for the >>>mainline, we have plenty of time, so please wait a little longer. >> >>You're correct, it definitly isn't appropriate for 6.3. However, it is >>appropriate for mainline. Lets get this patch off the table (and have >>working watchpoints), that way we're in a position to better focus on >>just the refactorings you talk of. Especially since, this work gives us >>a working test case that we can refactor against. >> >>Sound reasonable? > > > Andrew, I'm confused. Aren't you the maintainer who is historically > most likely to jump on contributors for kludging around missing > infrastructure? I think we should solve this correctly, not with (so > far) two majorly incorrect hacks. > > And we've already got working watchpoints. This is for multi-threaded > hardware watchpoints, which have never worked right in GDB and thus > seem to me like a new feature. Given our already overcommitted backlog: breakpoints on C++ constructors, breakpoints on inline code, DW_OP_piece, i18n, multi-arch solib, ....; how realistic is it that we'll, in addition, manage to both refactor the linux code base (I know this will be slow as I've been working on it) and also add multi-threaded watchpoints, all in the 6.4 time frame? Let concentrate on clearing existing backlog, and not add another promise to the list. Andrew