Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] design question re: watchpoint target methods
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:25:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AE9CFE5.5030700@caviumnetworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091029145817.GO24340@adacore.com>

Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> Jan said:
>> [...] I find the single functionality being split into two target
>> functions (to_stopped_by_watchpoint and to_stopped_data_address) to be
>> confusing.  Chose a new name to easily be able to keep the old
>> deprecated implementations working until its host maintainers can get
>> to update them as I cannot even compile some of the host files.
> 
> I tend to agree because I do not know of any reason why this separation
> would be needed.  Any reason why we should reject Jan's suggestion to
> have a single target operation instead of two? His proposal is to mark
> the following methods as deprecated:
> 
>     int (*to_stopped_by_watchpoint) (void);
>     int (*to_stopped_data_address) (struct target_ops *, CORE_ADDR *);
> 
> And to replace them by by a new operation:
> 
>     enum stopped_by_watchpoint (*to_thread_stopped_by_watchpoint)
>         (ptid_t ptid, CORE_ADDR *data_address_p);
> 
> Actually, I think that all target_ops operations should take a struct
> target_ops parameter, even if not needed, at least for consistency, but
> also to facilitate transitions if this parameter ever becomes needed
> later on.
> 
> One difference in the new operation is that it is now explicitly
> applicable to a specific ptid rather than being implicitly applicable
> to the current_ptid.
> 
> enum stopped_by_watchpoint is proposed to be:
>> +enum stopped_by_watchpoint
>> +  {
>> +    stopped_by_watchpoint_no,
>> +    stopped_by_watchpoint_yes_address_unknown,
>> +    stopped_by_watchpoint_yes_address_known
>> +  };

FWIW, I think it would be a good change.

I am somewhat ignorant about the namespace of ptid, but in the presence 
of multi-process debugging many of the target operations need to 
differentiate for which process the operation is intended.  I would hope 
that ptid would serve that purpose.

Certainly  mips-linux-nat.c would be affected by such a change.


Thanks,
David Daney


  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-10-29 17:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-10-29 14:58 Joel Brobecker
2009-10-29 15:46 ` Jan Kratochvil
2009-10-29 17:25 ` David Daney [this message]
2009-10-29 17:28 ` Daniel Jacobowitz

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4AE9CFE5.5030700@caviumnetworks.com \
    --to=ddaney@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox