From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8603 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2009 23:50:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 8593 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Mar 2009 23:50:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:50:25 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2ONngmO004586; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:49:42 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2ONnaSR026896; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:49:36 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-180.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.180]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2ONne09015190; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:49:41 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 18A933785DA; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:49:38 -0600 (MDT) To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Add task-specific breakpoint capability... References: <20090324203319.GB24100@adacore.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:55:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090324203319.GB24100@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Tue\, 24 Mar 2009 13\:33\:19 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-03/txt/msg00535.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: Joel> The reason why I'm posting this as an RFC is that, although Joel> the implementation is pretty straightforward, for some reason, Joel> I find it a bit inelegant. Having two integers which are pretty Joel> much mutually exclusive sounds pretty bad to me. But, on the other Joel> hand, I didn't really find anything that is that much better. FWIW this approach seems reasonable enough to me. Joel> +int Joel> +breakpoint_ada_task_match (CORE_ADDR pc, ptid_t ptid) Nothing calls this. Maybe the patch is missing changes from infrun.c, and a declaration in breakpoint.h? Tom