[RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch
Jeff Johnston
jjohnstn@redhat.com
Fri Dec 10 20:30:00 GMT 2004
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 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.
>
Done. I have reattached the code patch with these fixes.
> 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?
>
Actually, with i386/x86-64 I discovered that the debug registers are global in
scope for the setting of watchpoints (i.e. I didn't have to use the observer).
The status register, however, is thread-specific for reporting them. I have
gotten the watchthreads.exp testcase working for both platforms. Your lwp fix
helps a lot with this. We call TIDGET()/PIDGET() in the low-level code which
used to get called in the wrong ptid mode so we kept checking the main-thread
for the watchpoint.
> 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.
>
It works fine for the watchthreads.exp test once all the mechanisms are in place
(I have a few more patches to go). We don't want to iterate over all threads
unless we know the platform has a problem. Otherwise, we won't be able to pin
down a specific watchpoint triggered with the thread/source line that triggered
it. Is there a valid scenario where inferior_ptid should not be the thread for
the signal chosen by the low-level linux-nat code? If not, I would prefer to
treat that as a bug that requires pinning down.
> 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.
>
The multiple watchpoint scenario occurs in watchthreads.exp. For ia64, it is a
real pain which I will describe in my next patch.
> This is looking very good so far!
>
Thanks.
-- Jeff J.
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: watchthreads3c.patch
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/attachments/20041210/fafdd554/attachment.ksh>
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list