From: Steve Freeland <caucasatron@yahoo.ca>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Watchpoints in multithreaded programs
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 03:53:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061003035310.80501.qmail@web34211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> (raw)
Is there anything particularly wrong with just setting the watchpoint individually in each of
the threads? I haven't a clue about portability, but on I've checked on i386 Linux and this
seems to work... at least, it solves my problem. I can clean this up and make it submittable
as a patch, but first I'd like to know if there's a problem with it conceptually, as I've never
worked with gdb internals before:
struct i386_linux_dr_operation
{
int regnum;
unsigned long value;
};
static int i386_linux_dr_set_for_tid(int tid, int regnum, unsigned long value)
{
int result = 0;
errno = 0;
ptrace (PTRACE_POKEUSER, tid,
offsetof (struct user, u_debugreg[regnum]), value);
if (errno != 0)
{
perror_with_name (_("Couldn't write debug register"));
result = 1;
}
return result;
}
static int i386_linux_perform_dr_operation(struct thread_info *t, void *arg)
{
struct i386_linux_dr_operation *op = arg;
return i386_linux_dr_set_for_tid(TIDGET(t->ptid), op->regnum, op->value);
}
static void
i386_linux_dr_set (int regnum, unsigned long value)
{
int tid = TIDGET (inferior_ptid);
if (tid == 0)
{
i386_linux_dr_set_for_tid(PIDGET(inferior_ptid), regnum, value);
}
else
{
struct i386_linux_dr_operation op = { regnum, value };
iterate_over_threads(i386_linux_perform_dr_operation, &op);
}
}
----- Original Message ----
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Steve Freeland <caucasatron@yahoo.ca>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2006 7:24:43 PM
Subject: Re: Watchpoints in multithreaded programs
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 02:23:27PM -0700, Steve Freeland wrote:
> So... I'm a bit confused. Is the manual out of date? Did the
> "watchthreads" patch never make it into mainline builds for some
> reason?
It never did. Discussion trailed off and we never heard anything else
about it from the submitter.
I recall seeing a few weeks ago that there is an updated version in
the Red Hat SRPMs. Could any of the list subscribers from Red Hat
comment - is that version fit for submission?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
next reply other threads:[~2006-10-03 3:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-10-03 3:53 Steve Freeland [this message]
2006-10-03 4:07 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-10-01 21:23 Steve Freeland
2006-10-01 23:24 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-04-25 20:37 ` Jan Kratochvil
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20061003035310.80501.qmail@web34211.mail.mud.yahoo.com \
--to=caucasatron@yahoo.ca \
--cc=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox