This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

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

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:13:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Don't delete local watchpoints just because a different thread stopped.
References: <200911190207.02432.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20091119174539.GA24336@caradoc.them.org> <200911200030.50194.pedro@codesourcery.com>

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:30:50AM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Thursday 19 November 2009 17:45:39, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > For all-stop, do we want to check whenever the watchpoint's thread is
> > stopped?
> 
> Yep (non-stop), good catch.  Usually we'd get here with a stopped
> thread, but there's always say,

No, I really meant all-stop.

Suppose one thread hits a breakpoint, and another thread hits a
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.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Don't delete local watchpoints just because a different thread stopped.
  - From: Pedro Alves

References:
- Don't delete local watchpoints just because a different thread stopped.
  - From: Pedro Alves
- Re: Don't delete local watchpoints just because a different thread stopped.
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: Don't delete local watchpoints just because a different thread stopped.
  - From: Pedro Alves

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]