From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@delorie.com>
To: hjl@valinux.com
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unified watchpoints for x86 platforms
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:28:00 -0000
Message-id: <200102101928.OAA01348@indy.delorie.com>
References: <200009070855.EAA00749@albacore> <200009071500.LAA07756@indy.delorie.com> <200009081529.e88FTjx15960@debye.wins.uva.nl> <200102101533.KAA10417@indy.delorie.com> <20010210101837.A13630@valinux.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00106.html

> Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:18:37 -0800
> From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl@valinux.com>
> 
> 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?

That's what I'd like to know as well.  Anyone?