RFC: Fix "break *EXP thread NUM"
Maciej W. Rozycki
Tue Dec 1 19:53:00 GMT 2009
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Meanwhile, here's a patch that handles "t" and "task". I talked to
> > Andrew about this, and I still think we can get away without "+N" and
> > "-N"; they're only accepted by an accident of strtol.
> I have checked this in.
While we are at it -- it may be worth thinking about propagating thread
information associated with breakpoints and watchpoints down to the
respective backends. Some processors (like the MIPS 34K multi-threaded
core) supports thread qualification for execution and data breakpoints in
hardware and debug stubs would be eager to make use of that for
performance gain. Has it been considered before?
More information about the Gdb-patches