From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9361 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2006 13:49:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 9343 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jun 2006 13:49:09 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:49:04 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FvaPd-0003A0-NZ for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:49:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:49:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Correct semantics of target_read_partial, add target_read_whole Message-ID: <20060628134900.GA12133@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060622032355.GA27566@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-06/txt/msg00389.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:18:02PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Is there any reason why 'target_read_whole' calls 'target_read', as opposed > to calling 'target_read_partial' directly? I mean, if target_read_whole can > do several reads itself, there's no point to use 'target_read'. Thank you! Indeed we shouldn't use target_read; it will issue gratuitous extra packets (by breaking the transfer in the wrong place). Obviously I need to proofread all these changes again when I get home. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery