Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA]: Watchpoints per thread patch
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 02:20:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4190292D.5070103@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041109010425.GA31431@nevyn.them.org>

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 04:32:23PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> *sarcasm*
> 
> You're right.  That's an excellent plan.  Let's just drop the
> multithreaded watchpoint patch, then, if it will never make it
> to the front of the backlog.

> *sarcasm off*

Looks like I touched a raw nerve, eh?

Well let me touch another one.  Ask any serious developer trying to use 
GDB and they'll tell you bluntly ``we sux'', and the things I listed 
(along with multi-threaded watchpoints) are why ``we sux''.

Can we sux a lttle less and at least support multi-threaded watchpoints?

--

The obvious solution here is to accept a simplified version of the 
patch, as that way we at least get the feature into 6.4.


  reply	other threads:[~2004-11-09  2:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-10-19 23:57 Jeff Johnston
2004-10-20  5:04 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-10-20 11:03 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-10-20 16:21   ` Jeff Johnston
2004-10-20 17:27 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-10-20 17:30   ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-10-27 22:36     ` Jeff Johnston
2004-10-27 22:41       ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-10-27 23:17         ` Jeff Johnston
2004-10-28 13:33           ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-10-28 19:47             ` Jeff Johnston
2004-10-28 19:52               ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-10-28 20:13                 ` Jeff Johnston
2004-10-28  4:55       ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-11-04 18:25         ` Jeff Johnston
2004-11-04 21:21           ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-11-05  4:49           ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-05 16:52             ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-05 18:29               ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-08 21:33                 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-09  1:04                   ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-09  2:20                     ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2004-11-09  2:33                       ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-09  4:53                         ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-11-09 15:11                         ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-09 18:41                           ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-11 21:22                             ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-09 19:06                         ` Jeff Johnston
2004-11-09 19:31                           ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-09 20:24                             ` Jim Blandy
2004-11-10  0:02                               ` Jeff Johnston
2004-11-10 14:39                                 ` Jim Blandy
2004-11-11 21:23                                 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-09 20:48                             ` Jeff Johnston
2004-11-09 20:50                               ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-11-10 19:45                               ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-11-10 22:08                                 ` Jeff Johnston
2004-11-10 19:43                             ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-10-20 19:27   ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-11-05 11:49 Ulrich Weigand

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4190292D.5070103@gnu.org \
    --to=cagney@gnu.org \
    --cc=drow@false.org \
    --cc=eliz@gnu.org \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    --cc=jjohnstn@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox