This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFA]: Watchpoints per thread patch


Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 03:47:22PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 07:17:13PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:


Were you thinking of add_thread()? If so, we would have to move the calls to add_thread so they never occur before an attach because the low-level observers will need the thread already attached.


Oh, that's a good point.  Do you think that's a reasonable change to
make?


It is a can of worms. I can move the add_thread call in attach_thread easily enough, but there are other calls to add_thread strewn about. For example, corelow.c calls add_thread as does infrun.c when it finds a new process. I certainly don't see it being valid for either of these scenarios to insert/remove all watchpoints. My personal preference would be to leave it where it is for now.


There are two separate questions here:
  - When do we need to be adding and removing watchpoints from threads
    on GNU/Linux?
  - When should an observer named "new_thread" be called?

If it's not valid to do the former action at all the latter points,
then it's not the right observer to be using.


It could easily be called new_linux_thread or new_lwp_thread.


The code in infrun is never reached for native GNU/Linux threads, btw;
I'm not sure which targets if any do reach it.  I don't believe remote
GNU/Linux threads do either.


If you feel that add_thread will be safe in other scenarios, I am more than happy to do the change, but I will only be testing linux.


-- Jeff J.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]