From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10410 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2004 04:23:15 -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 10370 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2004 04:23:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aragorn.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.23) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Jun 2004 04:23:13 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-203-165.inter.net.il [80.230.203.165]) by aragorn.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id DDH07607; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 07:22:27 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 04:23:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Jeff Johnston Message-Id: <8011-Tue15Jun2004071916+0300-eliz@gnu.org> CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <40CE1B44.4070708@redhat.com> (message from Jeff Johnston on Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:40:20 -0400) Subject: Re: [RFC]: x86 threaded watchpoint support [2/3] Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <40CA252E.8050109@redhat.com> <9743-Sat12Jun2004123939+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <40CE1B44.4070708@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00345.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:40:20 -0400 > From: Jeff Johnston > > The change is needed because with the threading model, you can have multiple > events to process. So, if you check your watchpoint values, all of them may > have changed but you end up reporting an invalid thread location. For example, > I was getting watchpoints changing at the same time of a new thread event (it > couldn't discern). The reported location was __nptl_create_event (not very > useful). Does this mean that when a watchpoint breaks, it stops only the thread that hit the watchpoint, while other threads continue to run? If all threads stop, then there could not be multiple events, unless we are talking about a machine with more than one CPU. Or am I missing something? > I have talked to Andrew and he suggests that the target_stopped_data_address > code should be modified to add a status code instead of the current 0 addr > return value. That plan is okay with me, but I suggest to run the design by us before you start coding, in case there are platforms out there that need some adjustments in what you intend to do. Thanks.