From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20723 invoked by alias); 4 Oct 2004 03:35:46 -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 20712 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2004 03:35:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Oct 2004 03:35:46 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CEJdZ-0005EY-PA; Sun, 03 Oct 2004 23:35:45 -0400 Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 03:35:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] Prefer xfer_partial for memory xfers Message-ID: <20041004033545.GB19947@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <415C3406.30801@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <415C3406.30801@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2 On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 12:27:50PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > + NOTE: cagney/2004-09-30: > + > + The old code tried to use four separate mechanisms for mapping an > + object:offset:len tuple onto an inferior and its address space: the > + target stack; the inferior's TO_SECTIONS; solib's SO_LIST; > + overlays. > + > + This is stupid. > + > + The code below is instead using a single mechanism (currently > + strata). If that mechanism proves insufficient then re-factor it > + implementing another singluar mechanism (for instance, a generic > + object:annex onto inferior:object:annex say). */ "singular". Stray "say" (don't want an interjection at both the beginning and the end of the phrase). Does this mean that a bunch of new code would have to be written to make this compatible with overlays? How about solibs? -- Daniel Jacobowitz