[RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch

Daniel Jacobowitz drow@false.org
Fri Dec 10 20:03:00 GMT 2004


On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 06:36:13PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> The following is a modified version of my thread watchpoint patch from 
> October/November.  It removes the code I had used to switch between lwp 
> ptids and thread ptids now that Daniel's lwp patch is in place.  It uses 
> the former version of my observer that is linux-specific and is activated 
> in attach_thread in linux-thread-db.c.  Eli, I renamed the observer as 
> asked to indicate this.
> 
> I also addressed Ulrich's comments regarding simplifying the S390 code and 
> using the s390_fix_watch_points call to actually put the watchpoints on the 
> new thread.
> 
> Ulrich/Daniel can you take a look to verify everything is in place.  
> Daniel, I realize that this touches files that are currently in patch state 
> for you.  I have no problem waiting for your latest patch to apply and 
> retrofitting my changes at check-in if necessary.
> 
> As I mentioned before, more is required to get ia64 threaded watchpoints to 
> work.  For S390, this change allows it to set and recognize threaded 
> watchpoints.

Two formatting comments: please replace "linux" in comments with
"GNU/Linux", and please check copyright years on the modified files.

On the technical side, two questions:

1) I can see that it will be a bit of work to rearrange i386-linux to
use this, but it should be doable.  Do you know offhand of any
i386-specific problems other than inserting watchpoints for all
threads?

2) What should to_stopped_by_watchpoint do in the presence of multiple
threads?  It looks like it relies on inferior_ptid being the thread
which stopped at a watchpoint; I'm worried that that may not be
consistently true in a heavily threaded application.  Maybe it should
iterate over all threads.

The to_stopped_data_address has its own problems with threads; but the
case of handling hitting two watchpoints at once, I think, we can leave
for another day.

This is looking very good so far!

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz



More information about the Gdb-patches mailing list