Re: [RFC] Unified watchpoints for x86 platforms

[Mark Kettenis <kettenis@wins.uva.nl>]

   From: jtc@redback.com (J.T. Conklin)
   Date: 15 Feb 2001 14:45:16 -0800

   >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@delorie.com> writes:
   >> > 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.

   Eli> I have two opposite opinions here.  We need to resolve this somehow.

   We're going to need to pass a PID, or perhaps some new representation
   of a execution context, to a lot of code functions that don't allready
   have such an argument.  It is not clear to me that adding such an
   argument "because it will be needed" is correct, considering that the
   design has not yet started.  The truth is we don't know "what" will be
   needed, so we'll have to revisit this function (among many others)
   down the line anyway.

I agree with J.T. here.

Mark