Re: [RFA] New option "trust-readonly-sections"

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 11:51:30AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 09:22:09AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>> I'd rather see this default to on.
> >
> >>
> >>That would be an incompatible change.  I think we should avoid such 
> >>changes, unless we have a very good reason.
> >
> >
> >Stan's reply was convincing.  i guess I've been spoiled by
> >protected-memory situations.
> >
> >I'd personally like to object to your objection though, Eli. 
> >Performance can be a very good reason.  If it wasn't for the other
> >drawbacks, I'd consider the argument.

er... "drawbacks (that Stan pointed out to me), I'd argue with you
(Eli)".

> >
> >Perhaps I'm in the minority there, though.
> 
> 
> (Would you go near someone wearing an asbestos suit? :-)
> 
> It is really important that GDB doesn't lie.  If the tweek is safe then 
> certainly enable it.  This tweek _isn't_ safe in embedded targets.

Agreed.

> BTW, there are other things that can also be done - for instance 
> checking that the target text area hasn't changed.  There is a qCRC 
> packet (but from memory it was argued that wasn't strong enough).

Perhaps a qMD5 packet? :)

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer