From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23966 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2014 15:14:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 23954 invoked by uid 89); 24 Oct 2014 15:14:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:14:05 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s9OFE1Os019770 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:14:01 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s9OFDxTA009599; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:14:00 -0400 Message-ID: <544A6CB6.4080500@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:14:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans , Nick Bull CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] Events when inferior is modified References: <5419C597.4000300@gmail.com> <542C3F4D.70104@redhat.com> <5441432B.5040103@gmail.com> <21569.29405.219428.940000@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> In-Reply-To: <21569.29405.219428.940000@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00648.txt.bz2 On 10/17/2014 08:49 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > Alas our use of thread ids is a bit, umm, confusing > (in more ways than one! :-(). > Here, it's not guaranteed that ptid.lwp has something useful, > and it may be that the target uses ptid.tid instead. > > See python/py-infthread.c:thpy_get_ptid. > I think we should make that non-static and use that here. > IOW, pass the whole ptid_t to the event. How about using GDB's own unique thread number instead of the ptid? Doesn't seem to be any reason to expose target-side details or identifiers here? Thanks, Pedro Alves