From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15213 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2010 23:14:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 15205 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jul 2010 23:14:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 23:14:31 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o62NEUvV021316 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 19:14:30 -0400 Received: from mesquite.lan (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o62NETKx004273 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 19:14:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 23:14:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Should we be able to read simulator memory immediately after a "load" command? Message-ID: <20100702161429.02ead111@mesquite.lan> In-Reply-To: <20100702094621.757698c1@mesquite.lan> References: <20100628130010.360f398d@mesquite.lan> <20100629195600.GA17949@caradoc.them.org> <20100702094621.757698c1@mesquite.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2010-07/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 09:46:21 -0700 Kevin Buettner wrote: > I'll post it as a two-parter, the first part moves the static globals > into a per-inferior struct and makes the necessary adjustments to the > code. The second part will add `has_memory' and `has_all_memory' > methods in addition to adjusting gdbsim_xfer_inferior_memory(), thus > fixing the problem that lead me down this path at the outset. See: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-07/msg00059.html and http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-07/msg00060.html Kevin