Don't delete local watchpoints just because a different thread stopped.

Daniel Jacobowitz drow@false.org
Fri Nov 20 03:47:00 GMT 2009


On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 01:32:35AM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Friday 20 November 2009 01:13:06, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > watchpoint while we're trying to stop it.  Is there any reason not to
> > temporarily switch threads to check?  Or any reason to, for that
> > matter - I'm not sure.
> 
> At least on linux, the other watchpoint hit will be left
> pending, and so will be reported on the next resume,
> so it doesn't seem worth it to bother much with that.

Looks fine to me then.

I think you get any credit that needs getting for the non-stop change;
I had no idea we could get there while the current thread was running.
Seems strange.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery



More information about the Gdb-patches mailing list