From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23479 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2013 16:07:39 -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 23463 invoked by uid 89); 9 Sep 2013 16:07:38 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:07:38 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r89G7YCS011633 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 9 Sep 2013 12:07:34 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-132.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.132]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r89G7XkM020557 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Sep 2013 12:07:34 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Muhammad Waqas Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR gdb/11568 - delete thread-specific breakpoints on thread exit References: <521CF7D0.5040801@redhat.com> <1377692710-2885-1-git-send-email-mwaqas@codesourcery.com> <5224C0EB.3000503@redhat.com> <5224C238.2060106@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:07:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <5224C238.2060106@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Mon, 02 Sep 2013 17:52:08 +0100") Message-ID: <871u4ykmgq.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00292.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> Here it is. Let me know what you all think. It looks good to me. Pedro> There's no way that breakpoint can trigger again (*), so the PR argues Pedro> that the breakpoint should just be removed, like local watchpoints. Pedro> I'm ambivalent on this -- it could be reasonable to disable the Pedro> breakpoint (kind of like breakpoint in shared library code when the Pedro> DSO is unloaded), so the user could still use it as visual template Pedro> for creating other breakpoints (copy/paste command lists, etc.), or we Pedro> could have a way to change to which thread a breakpoint applies. But, Pedro> several people pushed this direction, and I don't plan on arguing... I've sometimes wished for a way to modify a breakpoint in place. There may be another PR about this. But it's fine to put in this patch now and remove it again later if anyone actually implements breakpoint modification. Tom