From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-10111-listarch-gdb=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 31924 invoked by alias); 28 Aug 2002 03:23:05 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 31914 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2002 03:23:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Aug 2002 03:23:05 -0000
Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 68FC63E39; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:22:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3D6C41FB.4010603@ges.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:23:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Quality Quorum <qqi@theworld.com>
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFC: Two small remote protocol extensions
References: <Pine.SGI.4.40.0208231609280.81352436-100000@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00369.txt.bz2


>> > 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