From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22068 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2008 02:08:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 21958 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Nov 2008 02:08:17 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:07:42 +0000 Received: from mailhost4.vmware.com (mailhost4.vmware.com [10.16.67.124]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87EA52F014; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:07:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.92.151] (promb-2s-dhcp151.eng.vmware.com [10.20.92.151]) by mailhost4.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7B2C9A1C; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:07:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4924C66A.4030603@vmware.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 06:42:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , teawater Subject: Re: [RFA] Resubmit process record and replay, 4/10 References: <4924C15D.20606@vmware.com> <200811200151.59213.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200811200151.59213.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed 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: 2008-11/txt/msg00530.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > A Thursday 20 November 2008 01:46:05, Michael Snyder escreveu: >> Seems like a couple of people had some doubts about this >> particular part of the implementation. >> >> Does anyone have any alternative suggestions? >> > > Sounds like a deficiency of the target interface, as most target_ops > functions don't take a "this" pointer and do the "beneath" > lookup themselves. > > Would doing something like this work here? : > > for (t = current_target.beneath; t != NULL; t = t->beneath) > if (t->to_xfer_partial != NULL) > { > t->to_xfer_partial (...); > return; > } > > etc., that is don't stop looking at the immediate > target beneath, but look until you find one that suits instead. > > I'd prefer that the core side isn't special cased for > the record target. If need be, we can add, change or adapt > the target interfaces. > I think that you're right that the "target beneath" functionality is incomplete as it is.