From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2799 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2003 17:09:25 -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 2709 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2003 17:09:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Apr 2003 17:09:23 -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 h3LH9MD32633 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:09:22 -0400 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 h3LH9Mq04829; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:09:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (romulus-int.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.46]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3LH9Kb14760; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:09:20 -0400 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 295512C438; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:13:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16036.9937.695502.618066@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:09:00 -0000 To: Adam Fedor Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Elena Zannoni , Michael Snyder , GDB Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Handle ObjC OPS in eval.c In-Reply-To: References: <20030421041353.GA18918@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00374.txt.bz2 Adam Fedor writes: > > On Sunday, April 20, 2003, at 10:13 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:42:49PM -0600, Adam Fedor wrote: > >> > >> The larger problem I have, though, is changing the patch so that I can > >> call the objc-lang functions indirectly, so that objc-lang.o does not > >> have to be linked in. That seems like a pain. > >> > >> I think it would be easier to split objc-lang.c into two parts. One > >> that > >> is architecture independant that I could link in now, and the other > >> acitecture dependant part (which is already handled via the language > >> vector). Anything wrong with that? > > > > What would go in the architecture dependant part? That shouldn't > > involve te _language_ vector, it should involve the _gdbarch_ vector, > > and go in the already-existing arch files. I think. > > > > > > Currently, objc-lang.c has code for determining if an address is the > address of one of the Objective-C method dispatch functions. It > currently depends on some code that has only been implemented on a few > architectures (Aside: This code is only used if gdb is debugging an > Objective-C program using the Apple runtime not the GNU runtime, so > it's basically only useful on MacOSX/Darwin). > > Andrew had suggested that we put the objc language calls in the > language vector so that we could conditionally compile in objc-lang.o > on certain architectures until the architecture dependant code gets > fixed (or ported?). Basically it's just a temporary solution to get > Objective-C support into gdb. I've already put the architecture > dependant calls in the language vector (skip_language_trampoline). > > I'm not positive what Andrew had intended, but I guess I would have to > put all the other Objective-C language functions in a vector as well. > However, I think it would be easier just to separate out the > architecture dependant part which is, again, conditionally compiled in, > while the rest of objc-lang.c is compiled in by default. Ah, that. Ok, but this has nothing to do with the patch in this thread. You can commit this patch omitting the if0-ed part. elena