From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23435 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2004 16:54:08 -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 23300 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2004 16:54:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Dec 2004 16:54:01 -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 iBAGs1J2018830 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:54:01 -0500 Received: from pobox.toronto.redhat.com (pobox.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.4]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iBAGrxr02514; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:54:00 -0500 Received: from touchme.toronto.redhat.com (IDENT:postfix@touchme.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.9]) by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id iBAGrwoS032736; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:53:59 -0500 Received: from redhat.com (toocool.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.72]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E65F8002A2; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:53:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <41B9D4A6.8050706@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:01:00 -0000 From: Jeff Johnston User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch References: <41B8E16D.6070505@redhat.com> <01c4deb2$Blat.v2.2.2$ce83b6e0@zahav.net.il> <20041210133116.GA11060@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20041210133116.GA11060@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00269.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 02:20:39PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >>Hmm... the new function insert_watchpoints_for_new_thread is called >>only by ia64_linux_new_thread. Is there any policy for functions that >>are only used by a single port? Do we care that all the other GDB >>builds will get a useless function compiled into them? Should we >>perhaps #ifdef it away conditioned on some symbol? > > > Let's not. Conditional compilation is bad... if it were more than a > single function, we could move it into its own file. > > However, I think ia64_linux_new_thread's use should be taken as an > example. If I understand Jeff's patch correctly, a number of other > targets with hardware watchpoints will need it also. > Originally, S390 also shared this code as it too has to insert watchpoints on all threads. However, it stores its own list of watchpoints so it doesn't require breakpoint.c to go through the breakpoint list and find them anymore. I had thought of making the function ia64-only after simplifying S390 but I figured there would be in all likelihood more platforms in the future that would need it. Either way is fine with me. -- Jeff J.