From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 924 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2003 23:18:30 -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 917 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2003 23:18:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ns1.xcllnt.net) (209.128.86.226) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Nov 2003 23:18:30 -0000 Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.201]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAANIHbe096031; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:18:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@piii.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAANIHhQ032755; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:18:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hAANIHBA032754; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:18:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:18:00 -0000 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: davidm@hpl.hp.com Cc: Andrew Cagney , "J. Johnston" , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: RFA: ia64 portion of libunwind patch Message-ID: <20031110231817.GB32590@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <3FA2B71A.3080905@redhat.com> <3FA2CA1B.7000502@redhat.com> <16290.59502.799536.383397@napali.hpl.hp.com> <3FAC12D3.2070207@redhat.com> <16300.8192.489647.740612@napali.hpl.hp.com> <3FAC2454.2030009@redhat.com> <16300.9949.513264.716812@napali.hpl.hp.com> <20031109013421.GA742@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <16304.2269.815957.953193@napali.hpl.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16304.2269.815957.953193@napali.hpl.hp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00205.txt.bz2 On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 01:53:33PM -0800, David Mosberger wrote: > > >> Is allocating a scratch buffer in gdb really such a big issue? > >> It's very late for proposing libunwind API changes. > > Marcel> I think it's very early to have it nailed down. > > No, the static code part of libunwind is not really open to > non-backwards-compatible changes anymore. Changing the API and breaking backward compatibility are two different things. I guess you specifically meant non-backward-compatible API changes when you only said API changes. That wasn't obvious though... ... > Marcel> developers (yes, you David :-) remain sensitive and open > Marcel> minded about the how well libunwind interfaces with or > Marcel> integrates into code that has a need for unwinding. ... > Perhaps we can find a backwards-compatible way of doing this, in which > case it's _much_ easier to add the feature. This is pretty much what I mean with open-minded. Discussing how a different libunwind API fits gdb better does not mean that the libunwind API should be changed. It's part of exploring how well (or not) libunwind fits the gdb paradigm and vice versa and what it takes to make it fit better if there's such a need. This, for all I care, can be purely academic. Heck, maybe libunwind2 can benefit from it :-) Anyway: point cleared up. Let's move on. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net