Re: [RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch

[Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 02:20:39PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> > Hmm... the new function insert_watchpoints_for_new_thread is called
> > only by ia64_linux_new_thread.  Is there any policy for functions that
> > are only used by a single port?  Do we care that all the other GDB
> > builds will get a useless function compiled into them?  Should we
> > perhaps #ifdef it away conditioned on some symbol?
>
>
> Let's not.  Conditional compilation is bad... if it were more than a
> single function, we could move it into its own file.
>
> However, I think ia64_linux_new_thread's use should be taken as an
> example.  If I understand Jeff's patch correctly, a number of other
> targets with hardware watchpoints will need it also.

Originally, S390 also shared this code as it too has to insert watchpoints on 
all threads.  However, it stores its own list of watchpoints so it doesn't 
require breakpoint.c to go through the breakpoint list and find them anymore.

I had thought of making the function ia64-only after simplifying S390 but I 
figured there would be in all likelihood more platforms in the future that would 
need it.

Either way is fine with me.

-- Jeff J.