From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18896 invoked by alias); 15 May 2005 17:12:58 -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 18864 invoked from network); 15 May 2005 17:12:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 May 2005 17:12:55 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DXMfe-0000Fp-FR; Sun, 15 May 2005 13:12:54 -0400 Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 17:25:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: GDB Patches Subject: Re: [rfa] Restore "trust-readonly-section" Message-ID: <20050515171254.GC11855@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , GDB Patches References: <00c201c55745$a651dd30$aaa56b80@msnyder8600> <00e201c55748$533cea10$aaa56b80@msnyder8600> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00e201c55748$533cea10$aaa56b80@msnyder8600> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00374.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 04:14:19PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > Hmm, tabs fubar -- I'll try again with the patch as an attachment. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Snyder" > To: "GDB Patches" > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:55 PM > Subject: [rfa] Restore "trust-readonly-section" > > > >This seems to have succumbed to bit-rot -- there are new target-read > >functions > >in target.c that don't pay any attention to this user-settable mode bit. > > > >The purpose of "trust-readonly-sections" is to improve speed on > >targets where reading memory is expensive (mostly remote). > >It checks to see if a read is from a read-only section, and if so, > >reads it from the exec file. It defaults to "off" for safety, but if > >users choose to use it, it really speeds up prologue analysis > >(and therefore stepping). > > > >This patch just makes it work again. It seems odd to add the test both in target_xfer_partial (a dispatcher) and default_xfer_partial (an implementation). Are they really both necessary? The code might be simpler if you push the trust_readonly check inside target_read_trusted. Also, could you name that something involving memory? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC