This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] Unified watchpoints for x86 platforms
On Feb 16, 2:29am, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > 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.
> Sorry, I'm not sure I'm following: why do you envision we'll need to
> pass the PID to functions that don't receive it today? What
> function(s) did you have in mind?
The idea (I think) is to make most uses of ``inferior_pid'' go away.
In its place will be occurrences of PIDGET (ptid) (or something along
these lines) where ptid is passed from somewhere else. As a result,
it will very likely become necessary to pass the execution context (or
perhaps an identifier representing the execution context) as a
parameter or perhaps as a member of some larger structure.
This patch doesn't address the elimination of inferior_pid, but it
does take a first step towards providing a more robust execution
context identifier in the sense that it is now possible to encode a
process id, thread id, and lightweight process id in one of these
identifiers. At the moment, we use a single int to encode the
- a process id (alone)
- a process id and a thread id
- a process id and an lwp id
IIRC, there are also times where the int in question ends up
containing just the thread id or just the lwp id.