From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20952 invoked by alias); 11 May 2007 18:21:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 20944 invoked by uid 22791); 11 May 2007 18:21:08 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from return.false.org (HELO return.false.org) (66.207.162.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2007 18:21:05 +0000 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56AB54B267; Fri, 11 May 2007 13:21:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D9B4B262; Fri, 11 May 2007 13:21:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1HmZjj-0000o7-EX; Fri, 11 May 2007 14:21:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 18:21:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc / remote protocol] Remote shared library events Message-ID: <20070511182103.GA2500@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Kevin Buettner , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20070509201627.GA23422@caradoc.them.org> <20070511110250.02dee32c@ironwood.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070511110250.02dee32c@ironwood.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-05/txt/msg00202.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:02:50AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > On Wed, 9 May 2007 16:16:27 -0400 > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > What do you think, Kevin especially? I'm not entirely thrilled with > > the way this interacts with other solib_ops vectors, but I'm not > > unhappy with it either. > > What in particular were you not thrilled with? I had to add two new methods, add_one_library and remove_one_library, that don't make sense for any of the other things using solib_ops. I thought for a bit about making this something completely different, so that you could have both a solib_ops and target-reported libraries; I think we'll want multiple sorts of libraries someday, but today I couldn't make it work sensibly. Also, the in_dynsym_code method is a bit hokey; calling in_plt_section happens to be right for SymbianOS, but I have a feeling Windows will want something more (at least, the relevant test is gdb1555.exp, and it fails on Windows once I add testsuite support to run it there). I suspect this should be split into a solib_ops specific bit and an architecture specific bit, or maybe just an architecture specific bit. Neither of these are big problems, really. > I've looked over the solib-specific changes. They look reasonable to > me. I didn't understand the infrun changes. I too would like to see > that put into a different patch. Coming right up (well, probably Monday at this point). Test case for it, too. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery