[RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch
Fri Dec 10 23:01:00 GMT 2004
> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:31:16 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: Jeff Johnston <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 02:20:39PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Hmm... the new function insert_watchpoints_for_new_thread is called
> > only by ia64_linux_new_thread. Is there any policy for functions that
> > are only used by a single port? Do we care that all the other GDB
> > builds will get a useless function compiled into them? Should we
> > perhaps #ifdef it away conditioned on some symbol?
> Let's not. Conditional compilation is bad...
I asked several questions. It sounds like you only replied to the
If possible, I'd like to hear opinions or official policy, if there is
one, on the other questions.
> However, I think ia64_linux_new_thread's use should be taken as an
> example. If I understand Jeff's patch correctly, a number of other
> targets with hardware watchpoints will need it also.
Which ones, and how do they get along now?
More information about the Gdb-patches