From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20054 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2003 05:15:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19898 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2003 05:15:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Oct 2003 05:15:20 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9T5FBM15798 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:15:11 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9T5FB621163 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:15:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-2.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.2]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9T5FAju006188; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:15:10 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h9T5F5n04921; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:15:05 -0700 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:15:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031029051504.ZM4920@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [patch/rfc] to_read/write_partial -> to_xfer_partial" (Oct 27, 7:02pm) References: <3F9D7F21.6030001@redhat.com> <1031027204631.ZM31164@localhost.localdomain> <3F9D472A.4010205@redhat.com> <1031028221140.ZM3837@localhost.localdomain> <3F9DB216.10803@redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] to_read/write_partial -> to_xfer_partial Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00833.txt.bz2 On Oct 27, 7:02pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > There's a tradeoff. You'll notice that I started out with separate > >> asthetically pleasing read/write methods, but eventually decided the > >> cost was too high. > >> > >> - the existing targets implement a memory centric "xfer". Its going to > >> be easier [for me] to convert that code to this new xfer variant. > >> > >> - both the read and write paths use identical buffer overflow logic, and > >> its that logic which contains the nasty edge cases and consequent bugs. > > > > > > Is there any reason you can't keep the methods separate, but use a > > common underlying "xfer" implementation? (Which, I think, is how > > it's presently done.) In the past, when trying to figure out how an > > xfer implementation worked, I recall looking at how the read/write > > stubs called the xfer function. > > Sorry, I'm lost. > > How is which presently done? The patch retains the existing target > read/write partial interfaces but uses an underlying to_xfer_partial > vector method. This is how the existing to_xfer_memory is implemented. My recollection of how the code was structured was faulty. I withdraw my objections. Kevin