From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jtc@redback.com (J.T. Conklin) To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: kevinb@cygnus.com, kettenis@wins.uva.nl, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Unified watchpoints for x86 platforms Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:52:00 -0000 Message-id: <5m7l2qbgv0.fsf@jtc.redback.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> <1010215184135.ZM8866@ocotillo.lan> <200102152125.QAA15548@indy.delorie.com> <5melwzd0qr.fsf@jtc.redback.com> <200102160729.CAA01185@indy.delorie.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00222.html >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: jtc@redback.com (J.T. Conklin) >> Date: 15 Feb 2001 14:45:16 -0800 >> >> 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. Eli> Sorry, I'm not sure I'm following: why do you envision we'll need to Eli> pass the PID to functions that don't receive it today? What Eli> function(s) did you have in mind? I was speaking in generalities. But if GDB is ever going to be able to debug multiple independent processes (perhaps with multiple threads) as has been a stated long term goal, we are going to have to entirely revamp how a "execution context" is represented, and how target functions know what context they are operating on. IMO, an inferior_pid global, and passing pids to various functions is not enough. --jtc -- J.T. Conklin RedBack Networks