This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfc, rfa/doc] Multi-threaded watchpoint improvements
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:04:09 -0400
- Subject: Re: [rfc, rfa/doc] Multi-threaded watchpoint improvements
- References: <20070916183949.GA23966@caradoc.them.org> <uzlzfysuo.fsf@gnu.org>
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 11:03:43AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Thanks (and sorry for the delay in reviewing: it was a busy week).
No problem - I appreciate your looking at it!
> The old text clearly separated the description of what GDB does for
> data-write watchpoints from what it does for date-read/data-access
> watchpoints. The new text confuses things, because it doesn't keep
> that separation. I suggest to rephrase the last paragraph as follows:
I like your version.
> watched value has changed. Watchpoints whose watched values has
> changed are announced as hit.
"have changed", right?
> Also, I don't understand the purpose of this sentence:
>
> > +@value{GDBN} only supports process-wide watchpoints.
>
> "Process-wide watchpoints'' as opposed to what?
As opposed to thread-specific watchpoints. We can make a watchpoint
act like it is thread-specific (or we will be able to once Luis's
patch is done), but we don't support setting hardware watchpoints that
only trigger in a specific thread. Yet, anyway.
> Is this perhaps the opposite of ``process-wide watchpoints''? If so,
> it sounds like a contradiction: first you say we don't support
> per-thread watchpoints, then you say we do (for some platforms).
>
> What am I missing here?
This is how I implement a process-wide watchpoint -- which is what the
core target-independent parts of GDB support -- using thread-specific
watchpoint registers supported by i386 GNU/Linux.
Does that clarify? Something like "process-wide watchpoints, which
trigger in all threads"?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery