From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11970 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2004 15:11:04 -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 11927 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2004 15:10:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Nov 2004 15:10:58 -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 iA9FAwZg000658 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:10:58 -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 iA9FAvr19557; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:10:57 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46615129D8C; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:10:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4190DDC8.5050004@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 15:11:00 -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: <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> <418FE5E7.3070501@gnu.org> <20041109010425.GA31431@nevyn.them.org> <4190292D.5070103@gnu.org> <20041109023306.GA1797@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20041109023306.GA1797@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00157.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 09:19:25PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>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? > > > Yes, you touched a raw nerve. You touched a raw nerve where you are > attempting to hold contributions from different contributors to > different standards. For instance, you blocked vsyscall support for > months because you objected to the quality and design of the code; I > felt it was of satisfactory quality, but you and I already know that we > disagree about many aspects of software design. Er, my objection to vsyscall was technical. Attach didn't work then, does it work now? No, so we've got a cludge. Andrew