Re: [RFC] Unified watchpoints for x86 platforms

[Kevin Buettner <kevinb at cygnus dot com>]

On Feb 16,  2:29am, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > 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 idea (I think) is to make most uses of ``inferior_pid'' go away. 
In its place will be occurrences of PIDGET (ptid) (or something along
these lines) where ptid is passed from somewhere else.  As a result,
it will very likely become necessary to pass the execution context (or
perhaps an identifier representing the execution context) as a
parameter or perhaps as a member of some larger structure.

See http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-10/msg00014.html

This patch doesn't address the elimination of inferior_pid, but it
does take a first step towards providing a more robust execution
context identifier in the sense that it is now possible to encode a
process id, thread id, and lightweight process id in one of these
identifiers.  At the moment, we use a single int to encode the
following:

 - a process id (alone)
 - a process id and a thread id
 - a process id and an lwp id

IIRC, there are also times where the int in question ends up
containing just the thread id or just the lwp id.

Kevin