This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch 0/1] Threaded Watchpoints
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 08:44:22PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> I guess your new way makes more sense. This means we can remove
> HAVE_CONTINUABLE_WATCHPOINTS completely, though. (As a related
> point, I think it would be good to fix the oddity that nonsteppable
> watchpoints are reported as a gdbarch property while steppable
> watchpoints are reported as a target property ...)
I totally agree. I just don't know which one makes more sense.
Probably gdbarch but I'm sure I'll break something if I try to
change it.
> > > This assumes that the new thread's ptid will always be passed to the
> > > resume. Is this necessarily the case? I would expect ptid to be -1
> > > in most cases ...
> >
> > It is necessarily the case. This function is never called through
> > target_resume, only through linux_nat_resume. This was one of the big
> > cleanups that made my patch possible.
>
> Hmm, I see. This assumes that after every new-thread event, the new
> thread is selected as inferior_ptid, though.
I don't think it assumes that. s390_resume should be called once for
each thread, and not depend on inferior_ptid at all; only
linux_nat_resume has to check for ptid == -1, schedlocking, et cetera.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery