From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-56265-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 338 invoked by alias); 22 May 2008 16:38:08 -0000
Received: (qmail 327 invoked by uid 22791); 22 May 2008 16:38:08 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 May 2008 16:37:50 +0000
Received: (qmail 29475 invoked from network); 22 May 2008 16:37:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 22 May 2008 16:37:48 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: GDB record patch 0.1.3.1 for GDB-6.8 release
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 03:52:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9
Cc: Tea <teawater@gmail.com>,  "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@specifix.com>,  "Thiago Jung Bauermann" <bauerman@br.ibm.com>
References: <daef60380804222316j1b2f10afm77e01ac2618a86ba@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <daef60380804222316j1b2f10afm77e01ac2618a86ba@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200805221737.50773.pedro@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-05/txt/msg00666.txt.bz2

Hi Teawater,

I took a really quick glimpse at the patch, and I was wondering if making t=
he
record target a proper target that sits on top of all the other targets=20
wouldn't make more sense?

enum strata
  {
    dummy_stratum,		/* The lowest of the low */
    file_stratum,		/* Executable files, etc */
    core_stratum,		/* Core dump files */
    process_stratum,		/* Executing processes */
    thread_stratum,		/* Executing threads */

    record_stratum              /* Support reverse debugging */
  };

Then, things could be a bit more encapsulated.  e.g., this wouldn't be need=
ed,

@@ -1026,10 +1047,18 @@ wait_for_inferior (int treat_exec_as_sig
=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0while (1)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0{
-      if (deprecated_target_wait_hook)
-       ecs->ptid =3D deprecated_target_wait_hook (ecs->waiton_ptid, ecs->w=
p);
+      if (record_list && (record_list->next || gdb_is_reverse))
+       {
+         ecs->ptid =3D record_wait (current_gdbarch, ecs->waiton_ptid,=20
ecs->wp);
+       }
       else
-       ecs->ptid =3D target_wait (ecs->waiton_ptid, ecs->wp);
+       {
+         if (deprecated_target_wait_hook)
+           ecs->ptid =3D
+             deprecated_target_wait_hook (ecs->waiton_ptid, ecs->wp);
+         else
+           ecs->ptid =3D target_wait (ecs->waiton_ptid, ecs->wp);
+       }

Those new checks could be done inside record_wait, and if eval as false,
defer to the target beneath.

There are probably other things that would become cleaner too.
--=20
Pedro Alves