This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: Fix "break *EXP thread NUM"
- From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>, Andrew Stubbs <ams at codesourcery dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Vladimir Prus <vladimir at codesourcery dot com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:53:37 +0000 (GMT)
- Subject: Re: RFC: Fix "break *EXP thread NUM"
- References: <20091123212736.GA3828@caradoc.them.org> <4B0BB652.3080303@codesourcery.com> <20091124142406.GA14875@caradoc.them.org> <20091124145422.GA26004@adacore.com> <20091124150533.GA8964@caradoc.them.org> <20091125204303.GA21726@caradoc.them.org>
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Meanwhile, here's a patch that handles "t" and "task". I talked to
> > Andrew about this, and I still think we can get away without "+N" and
> > "-N"; they're only accepted by an accident of strtol.
>
> I have checked this in.
While we are at it -- it may be worth thinking about propagating thread
information associated with breakpoints and watchpoints down to the
respective backends. Some processors (like the MIPS 34K multi-threaded
core) supports thread qualification for execution and data breakpoints in
hardware and debug stubs would be eager to make use of that for
performance gain. Has it been considered before?
Maciej