[RFA]: Watchpoints per thread patch
Thu Oct 28 20:13:00 GMT 2004
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 03:47:22PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>>On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 07:17:13PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>>>>Were you thinking of add_thread()? If so, we would have to move the
>>>>calls to add_thread so they never occur before an attach because the
>>>>low-level observers will need the thread already attached.
>>>Oh, that's a good point. Do you think that's a reasonable change to
>>It is a can of worms. I can move the add_thread call in attach_thread
>>easily enough, but there are other calls to add_thread strewn about. For
>>example, corelow.c calls add_thread as does infrun.c when it finds a new
>>process. I certainly don't see it being valid for either of these
>>scenarios to insert/remove all watchpoints. My personal preference would
>>be to leave it where it is for now.
> There are two separate questions here:
> - When do we need to be adding and removing watchpoints from threads
> on GNU/Linux?
> - When should an observer named "new_thread" be called?
> If it's not valid to do the former action at all the latter points,
> then it's not the right observer to be using.
It could easily be called new_linux_thread or new_lwp_thread.
> The code in infrun is never reached for native GNU/Linux threads, btw;
> I'm not sure which targets if any do reach it. I don't believe remote
> GNU/Linux threads do either.
If you feel that add_thread will be safe in other scenarios, I am more than
happy to do the change, but I will only be testing linux.
-- Jeff J.
More information about the Gdb-patches