From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25232 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2008 16:00:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 25224 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Feb 2008 16:00:36 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from wildebeest.demon.nl (HELO gnu.wildebeest.org) (83.160.170.119) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:00:13 +0000 Received: from dijkstra.wildebeest.org ([192.168.1.29]) by gnu.wildebeest.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JU2Dz-0003yo-15; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:00:11 +0100 Subject: Re: Watchpoint prorogation to child threads From: Mark Wielaard To: Phil Muldoon Cc: Frysk Hackers In-Reply-To: <47C42CA3.1030003@redhat.com> References: <47C42CA3.1030003@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:00:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1204041610.3487.62.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-1.fc8) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-q1/txt/msg00075.txt.bz2 Hi Phil, On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 15:13 +0000, Phil Muldoon wrote: > A question about watchpoint prorogation to child threads: > > Thread A clones/forks Thread B > > In the state machine that deals with the watchpoint code, the new code > will update cloned offspring with the same set of watchpoints. > > This is how I see it now. Are there useful use-cases that dictate that > this behavior should not happen? It would be nice if this is similar to the breakpoints. Low-level breakpoints are the same on a clone (because they are really just markers in the code segment which is the same), but they are cleared on exec (because then the memory of the process is reset). Cheers, Mark