From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22895 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2002 17:25:05 -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 22811 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2002 17:25:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Jan 2002 17:25:01 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16Tnce-0007EW-00; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:25:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 09:25:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] New option "trust-readonly-sections" Message-ID: <20020124122512.A27649@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Eli Zaretskii , Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020124004435.A11710@nevyn.them.org> <20020124113550.A26125@nevyn.them.org> <3C503B92.5040900@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C503B92.5040900@cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00727.txt.bz2 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