[RFA]: Modified Watchthreads Patch
Fri Dec 10 23:52:00 GMT 2004
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 01:30:52AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> You may recall that I objected to using observers for this in the
> first place, but my objections were voted down. Given that, I don't
> find it useful to object to Jeff's current patch. But I will
> encourage any attempts to refactor the watchpoint interfaces and x86
> native code to accomodate multi-threaded programs, even if in the
> meantime we approve some changes that patch around the inappropriate
> design to get thread-local watchpoints on some platforms.
By whom? I waited to review the revised version until you had a chance
to comment on the continued use of observers. The last conclusion I
remember from the previous discussion was that I would prefer to use
the target stack, but didn't have a strong enough preference to object
to an observer. Jeff asked you if a renamed observer was acceptable,
and you said that it was.
If there's been a miscommunication, if you still object to this use of
the observers, please, say so now. We can discuss alternatives. Before
the patch goes in is the best time.
> > To get a useful level of support from the i386 watchpoint code, in
> > fact, looks pretty easy.
> It may be easy, but I think we still need to talk about the design.
> The debug registers mirroring in i386-nat.c clearly assume that debug
> registers are all global. This might not work at all with threads.
Yes, definitely that would need discussion.
More information about the Gdb-patches