Re: RFC: Two small remote protocol extensions

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>]

>> > When reading or writing memory, gdb specifies a thread.  If it turns out
> 
>> >> that the thread disappeared, GDB picks a thread, any thread (the
>> >> assumption being that all address spaces are pretty much similar).
>> >>
>> >> Mind you, I've seen thread implementations that implemented per-thread
>> >> local data using VM.
> 
>> >
>> >
>> > It does not mean that everybody else should suffer, it is time to fix
>> > this youthful indiscretion.
> 
>>
>> Humor me.  So who is suffering?
> 
> 
> All things embedded and I suppose it is a much bigger market/user group
> than ***ix one.

Why are ``all things embedded'' suffering?

I know of two cases:

a) The threads have a 100% shared address space.  Binding memory 
accesses to a thread will make zero difference.

b) The threads do not have a 100% shared address space.  Binding memory 
accesses to a thread will at least make it better reflect GDB's view of 
a threads address space.

Andrew