From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25511 invoked by alias); 4 Oct 2004 14:53:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 25498 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2004 14:53:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Oct 2004 14:53:18 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i94ErHsu022954 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:53:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i94ErHr24487; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:53:17 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B9028D2; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:53:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <416163CC.6050603@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:53:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040831 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] Prefer xfer_partial for memory xfers References: <415C3406.30801@gnu.org> <20041004033545.GB19947@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20041004033545.GB19947@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00048.txt.bz2 > On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 12:27:50PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>> + NOTE: cagney/2004-09-30: >>> + >>> + The old code tried to use four separate mechanisms for mapping an >>> + object:offset:len tuple onto an inferior and its address space: the >>> + target stack; the inferior's TO_SECTIONS; solib's SO_LIST; >>> + overlays. >>> + >>> + This is stupid. >>> + >>> + The code below is instead using a single mechanism (currently >>> + strata). If that mechanism proves insufficient then re-factor it >>> + implementing another singluar mechanism (for instance, a generic >>> + object:annex onto inferior:object:annex say). */ > Does this mean that a bunch of new code would have to be written to > make this compatible with overlays? How about solibs? I tested on PPC/NetBSD and it showed no regressions so the solib case is definitly covered (and as the note implies, there's serious level of redundancy in the current "design"). Andrew