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
next prev 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