From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eli Zaretskii To: kevinb@cygnus.com Cc: kettenis@wins.uva.nl, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Unified watchpoints for x86 platforms Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:26:00 -0000 Message-id: <200102152125.QAA15548@indy.delorie.com> References: <200009070855.EAA00749@albacore> <200009071500.LAA07756@indy.delorie.com> <200009081529.e88FTjx15960@debye.wins.uva.nl> <200102101533.KAA10417@indy.delorie.com> <200102151146.NAA28431@is.elta.co.il> <1010215184135.ZM8866@ocotillo.lan> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00187.html > Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:41:35 -0700 > From: Kevin Buettner > > > > Is there any particular reason why you need the PID argument? AFAICS > > it will always be equal to INFERIOR_PID, so I think we can do without > > it. This is also true for the other i386_hwbp_* functions you're > > proposing. > > I think it'd be better to not rely on ``inferior_pid''. I would > rather see the explicitly passed. There will come a day when GDB > is able to debug more than one process at a time and to perpetuate > reliance on inferior pid would be short sighted. I have two opposite opinions here. We need to resolve this somehow. > I have read the rest of Eli's proposal as well as Mark's comments and > I agree with the rest of Mark's remarks. Thanks for the feedback.