Re: [RFC/RFA] Target vectors for native Linux targets

Mark Kettenis
2005-08-21T15:21:26Z

> From: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
> Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:28:31 +0200 (CEST)
>
> Mark Kettenis wrote:
>
> > Hmm, it would be preferable to have it the other way around, since
> > that would make eliminating the nm-linux.h files, but I can see why
> > you did it this way. In the end we might just define USE_LINUX_TARGET
> > if GDB_NM_FILE isn't defined. So it's not really important. I've
> > added some more comments on the patch inline.
>
> I guess we could make a config/nm-new-linux.h or something -- that
> would be a (temporary) new nm file, but would allow to remove the
> per-platform Linux nm files as platforms are converted over ...

Don't bother. All the cruft in there has to go away eventually.
Making it more cruftier in the meantime isn't a problem.

> > Indeed. When I did conversions in the past the
> > depreceated_xfer_memory always came back to haunt me, so we have to be
> > a bit careful. Did you test your patch on another Linux target that
> > wasn't converted yet?
>
> I tested it on s390 *without* the follow-up patch, and that went
> fine as well ...

Should be. Although it wouldn't hurt if people tested this patch on
their favourite Linux system.

> > Daniels earlier attempt had linux_target accept a `struct target_ops
> > *' as an argument to serve as an alternative for a plain
> > inf_ptrace_target(). I thought that was necessary for i386 and sparc
> > Linux targets, but I think I've convinced myself that it isn't.
>
> Since you can always override the target functions afterwards,
> I'm not sure why this would be necessary ...

I think Daniels earlier patch did things a little bit differently,
eliminating the Linux pseudo-LWP layer. That made overriding things
afterwards more difficult. All the more reason to go with your patch
instead of reviving Daniels old one.

Mark