From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H . J . Lu" To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Unified watchpoints for x86 platforms Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:19:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010210101837.A13630@valinux.com> References: <200009070855.EAA00749@albacore> <200009071500.LAA07756@indy.delorie.com> <200009081529.e88FTjx15960@debye.wins.uva.nl> <200102101533.KAA10417@indy.delorie.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00105.html On Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 10:33:52AM -0500, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > unsigned int HWBP_GET_STATUS (int pid); > > This macro returns the value of the DR6 debug status register from > the inferior. > > In the discussion we had back in September, Mark said that the > status register should be per thread. Does that mean that we need > an additional argument (int tid?) to pass to HWBP_GET_STATUS? If > so, how will this argument get into the i386_hwbp_* functions which > will call these macros? What is the difference between pid and tid in this case? Can we derive tid from pid? > > Or maybe the target end can figure out the thread id by itself with > some TIDGET(pid) magic? > > > Comments? Suggestions? Flames? I haven't looked at it in detail. I guess Linux can live with the one everyone agrees up on. If it turns out it is not true, I hope we can still change it :-(. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to try it out now. However, I will give it a try when the OS independent part is checked in and noone is working on Linux. Thanks. -- H.J. Lu (hjl@valinux.com)