From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@delorie.com>
To: jtc@redback.com
Cc: kevinb@cygnus.com, kettenis@wins.uva.nl, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unified watchpoints for x86 platforms
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:30:00 -0000
Message-id: <200102160729.CAA01185@indy.delorie.com>
References: <200009070855.EAA00749@albacore> <200009071500.LAA07756@indy.delorie.com> <200009081529.e88FTjx15960@debye.wins.uva.nl> <200102101533.KAA10417@indy.delorie.com> <200102151146.NAA28431@is.elta.co.il> <s3ilmr72a5u.fsf@debye.wins.uva.nl> <1010215184135.ZM8866@ocotillo.lan> <200102152125.QAA15548@indy.delorie.com> <5melwzd0qr.fsf@jtc.redback.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00202.html

> From: jtc@redback.com (J.T. Conklin)
> Date: 15 Feb 2001 14:45:16 -0800
> 
> We're going to need to pass a PID, or perhaps some new representation
> of a execution context, to a lot of code functions that don't allready
> have such an argument.

Sorry, I'm not sure I'm following: why do you envision we'll need to
pass the PID to functions that don't receive it today?  What
function(s) did you have in mind?

The current watchpoint implementation on i386v-nat.c, for example,
does accept PID as an argument.