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.
next prev parent 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