From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@delorie.com>
To: kevinb@cygnus.com
Cc: jtc@redback.com, kettenis@wins.uva.nl, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unified watchpoints for x86 platforms
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:29:00 -0000
Message-id: <200102160729.CAA01182@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> <s3ilmr72a5u.fsf@debye.wins.uva.nl> <1010215184135.ZM8866@ocotillo.lan> <200102152125.QAA15548@indy.delorie.com> <5melwzd0qr.fsf@jtc.redback.com> <1010216000953.ZM9629@ocotillo.lan>
X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00201.html

> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:09:53 -0700
> From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
> 
> I think the answer is to use your best judgement.  Regardless of
> whether you pass the pid in or simply use inferior_pid, your new
> watchpoint code is going to have to eventually be changed to use
> a different representation of the execution context.  I happen to
> think that it might actually change less if you pass a parameter, but
> after thinking about it a bit more, I can see why someone else might
> hold the opposite opinion.

Okay, thanks for the feedback.  I'll sleep on this and then decide.