From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28655 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2007 21:03:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 28647 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2007 21:03:51 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw1.br.ibm.com (HELO igw1.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:03:40 +0000 Received: from mailhub3.br.ibm.com (mailhub3 [9.18.232.110]) by igw1.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966E832C06F for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:44:52 -0200 (BRDT) Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.47]) by mailhub3.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id lAUL3bb63371062 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:03:38 -0200 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lAUL3btH030886 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:03:37 -0200 Received: from [9.18.238.251] (dyn532128.br.ibm.com [9.18.238.251]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lAUL3btD030883; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:03:37 -0200 Subject: Re: Keeping breakpoints inserted From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <200711292224.23659.vladimir@codesourcery.com> References: <200711292224.23659.vladimir@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:03:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1196456622.6746.169.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00300.txt.bz2 Hi, On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 22:24 +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Anybody has comments on this approach? When adding and removing breakpoints, will GDB stop all threads or just the one under inspection? On first thought, I think that if adding a breakpoint can be done atomically (i.e., trap instruction is 1 word wide), then it wouldn't be necessary to stop other threads. Am I being too naive here? -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann Software Engineer IBM Linux Technology Center