From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
Cc: Adam Fedor <fedor@doc.com>, GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Trivialize objc-lang.c FETCH_ARGUMENT
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:08:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030423021400.GA13849@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3EA5F51A.8CC11F12@redhat.com>
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 07:06:18PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Adam Fedor wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, April 22, 2003, at 07:41 PM, Michael Snyder wrote:
> >
> > > Adam Fedor wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Well, I thought I'd at least try to see if this patch would be ok.
> > >> Here
> > >> I replace the arcitecture dependant FETCH_ARGUMENT with a trivial
> > >> implementation that does nothing. This would allow objc-lang.o to be
> > >> linked into gdb and I commit most or all of the remaining Objective-C
> > >> patches. Then I could work on fixing FETCH_ARGUMENT at my leasure...
> > >
> > > That seems reasonable. By the way, if there's been an ongoing
> > > discussion,
> > > I haven't followed it. Why is it that you need to do this in an
> > > architecture-dependent way? GDB should have enough debug info to
> > > do this cleanly, shouldn't it?
> > >
> > It's possible, although these particular functions are in the Apple
> > runtime and highly optimized, possibly in assembly. I'm not sure if the
> > information is available. I'll have to look at it more, but I couldn't
> > even test the changes since it only works on MacOSX/Darwin and GNU gdb
> > doesn't compile on Darwin.
>
> Yeah, if I remember from my days at NeXT, the purpose of this was
> in debugging something that was not really debuggable.
>
> So some sort of compromise would seem to be in order.
>
> If this function does not need to be general (it doesn't seem to
> be used anywhere else), perhaps the apple folk can agree to some
> sort of a specified API for obtaining the arguments they need.
> Or perhaps they no longer need such radical optimization, and
> the functions can be written in C.
The functions are written in C; they just don't necessarily have debug
info. If you search for FETCH_POINTER_ARGUMENT in the archives (about
a month ago?) you'll see that I need something similar for C++; so I
support just getting this method properly defined and into the
architecure where it's feasible to.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-04-23 3:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-04-22 14:48 Adam Fedor
2003-04-23 1:41 ` Michael Snyder
2003-04-23 2:09 ` Adam Fedor
2003-04-23 2:00 ` Adam Fedor
2003-04-23 2:06 ` Michael Snyder
2003-04-23 14:08 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2003-04-23 3:07 ` Adam Fedor
2003-04-23 8:32 ` Adam Fedor
2003-04-25 3:21 ` Andrew Cagney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030423021400.GA13849@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=fedor@doc.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=msnyder@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox