From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16089 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2009 15:00:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 16070 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jul 2009 15:00:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com (HELO qw-out-1920.google.com) (74.125.92.146) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:00:07 +0000 Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so1414195qwf.24 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:00:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.67.197 with SMTP id s5mr2062880qai.77.1249052405226; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:00:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hotblack.localnet ([189.4.46.16]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4sm6304728qwe.37.2009.07.31.08.00.03 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:00:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Add interface for registering JITed code Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:18:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.4 (Linux/2.6.30-1-amd64; KDE/4.2.4; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Tom Tromey , Reid Kleckner , unladen-swallow@googlegroups.com References: <9a9942200907221615o570e749fh5cb186c1600f159c@mail.gmail.com> <200907301501.17812.thiago.bauermann@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200907301501.17812.thiago.bauermann@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200907311201.28986.thiago.bauermann@gmail.com> 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: 2009-07/txt/msg00763.txt.bz2 Ok, I had one night's sleep over this, and just re-read the thread. :-) Em Quinta-feira 30 Julho 2009 15:01:17 Thiago Jung Bauermann escreveu: > Em Quinta-feira 30 Julho 2009 12:12:50 Tom Tromey escreveu: > > >>>>> "Reid" == Reid Kleckner writes: > > > > Tom> Yeah. This would work if you had two JITs in a process, say loaded > > Tom> dynamically, and the various __jit symbols had hidden visibility. > > > > Reid> I think if someone has that use case, then they can write a client > > Reid> side library that wraps the __jit symbols and make the two JITs > > call Reid> that. > > > > Yeah, I changed my mind, let's not worry about it. If it ever comes up, > > we can deal with it then without breaking compatibility. > > If/when someone wants to add another scripting language to GDB, we will be > bitten by this issue. I can see that happening already. :-) I still think this will happen soon enough ... > You're saying that the current patch is extensible to deal with that? ... but I agree with Reid in that the inferior (or client) can deal with that case internally (also it seems fair, since it is the client who wanted to have two JITs in the first place. :-) ). It is nice that the GDB-facing interface is as simple as possible. Also the protocol is versioned. That is awesome. I don't have worries regarding this issue. > Also, changing subjects: it is important that this feature works on core > files, or at least is forward-compatible with such a feature. I think this > needs to be thought through before the patch goes in. I still think that the patch needs to be tested with a core file scenario before it is checked in. Since said scenario is similar to attaching to a running process, it will likely magically work, though. -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann