From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id aCEUCEL4cl8jQAAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 05:02:58 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 1D1ED1E8D0; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 05:02:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.3 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FSL_HELO_FAKE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C07FE1E58E for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 05:02:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31B573844015; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 09:02:57 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 31B573844015 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1601370177; bh=8nNcjaA38T5/f1slvG1oEaefNkj+wye71wyAosWMgtI=; h=Date:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=AFLUkzmEIA7KbFBj6uqhajzJqw/VbDp6fUUQ9fx5/JiwunJWeqi3rbVA3/mylMUMC Hm7T24dZDC+1GR8QN9/+Q073FftDlaotlKOJnzcFhqxUSAyd/53WmLOypgWIt0w603 P63UYuJbiYRTDcIjkZ8kzS9PQNNH0ExsRBdp4zIQ= Received: from mail-ed1-x543.google.com (mail-ed1-x543.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::543]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 857483861812 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 09:02:55 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 857483861812 Received: by mail-ed1-x543.google.com with SMTP id k14so5529217edo.1 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 02:02:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-description:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=8nNcjaA38T5/f1slvG1oEaefNkj+wye71wyAosWMgtI=; b=rk4LlsIJhAT8qG3VOr6jB4+f4O/M8kGhfd6kbuuW4Pc24eISk4RVexa8AiPWNAiokJ NxHvgiU99V/oGAKryvkAt5kB5DHGmq5jG/OJTGqyxw16YLfJdafHv5xgofW6nneaSpEM r/MnpDJQX1mzMBk+s/1CGLC3KosaG1jOtlnUu0jGJKF3TLJebojmQKfUrgqEH5cL6im6 zsrGI4UWyXyPMohu6aalwWApNt7FQdiHEwO2OtNaXC+rm1uhdvojyp7EzlIXa6RFyuuo ynKjuIq1sARz51ro1EShQFm78ItVflfeAzCEljCc4IZJlxl4i+HSmqea3inTGUls3VY8 ieWA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531eHtmfHLe4s67CDdK/ySUl4D/I5A6Vqk1PrMkQuHs8r1sP9Mum 4CszgMa5ut7bwZf3MGVbeu8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxVH04M7fFuXgFK5J+h46nGGeCiTxXkQjDtoyFa3ipztrwLtmr5FH90wruZKHlQD9AWQw+gtA== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c98d:: with SMTP id c13mr2171908edt.199.1601370174670; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 02:02:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmail.com ([2a03:1b20:3:f011::6d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v17sm4553016ejj.55.2020.09.29.02.02.53 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 29 Sep 2020 02:02:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:02:57 +0200 To: "Aktemur, Tankut Baris" , Simon Marchi Subject: Re: [PATCH] arc: Add support for Linux coredump files Message-ID: <20200929090257.GC4717@gmail.com> References: <20200827112728.4275-1-shahab.vahedi@gmail.com> <18b98a56-e3cf-e05b-49a7-bd6e1f61aefb@simark.ca> <20200928134714.GA4717@gmail.com> <20200929082456.GB4717@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: support Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200929082456.GB4717@gmail.com> X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Shahab Vahedi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Shahab Vahedi Cc: Anton Kolesov , Shahab Vahedi , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Francois Bedard Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:24:59AM +0200, Shahab Vahedi wrote: > "the_target->read_memory()" and "read_memory()" should be the > same in terms of code execution (not code writing). Then, > there is "target_read_memory()" which I think is the default > implementation [3]. > > [3] > "process_stratum_target" class (the base) provides > "read_memory()" as pure virtual method. Therefore, it must be defined > overridden somewhere and I _think_ this is the default implementation. To be correct, they are NOT the same: the_target->read_memory --> linux-low.cc: linux_process_target::read_memory target_read_memory --> target.cc: read_inferior_memory The second is a wrapper around the first one with some sanity checks. This supports my previous decision to using it. Cheers, Shahab