From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31126 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2008 15:34:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 31117 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Sep 2008 15:34:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:33:45 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C768104C0; Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:33:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DF86104BF; Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:33:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KeX82-00022g-IC; Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:33:42 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:34:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Kill ptrace_ops_hack Message-ID: <20080913153342.GC6583@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200808192133.34582.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200808192133.34582.vladimir@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-09/txt/msg00290.txt.bz2 On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 09:33:34PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > This is the complete patch to kill ptrace_ops_hack. The approach is > outlined at http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gdb.patches/43085 > is involves adding 'struct target_ops *' parameter to enough target > methods to make ptrace_ops_hack unnecessary. > > This patch mechanically adjusts all other targets to the changes, > but does not try to make those target take advantage of the new > parameter. It appears there there's a lot of target that have a > static variable poiting either to themself, or to the target beneath, > and each such target probably should be fixed individually, but somebody > who can test on this target. > > OK? Yes, this is OK. Thanks for cleaning this up! -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery