From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7615 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2009 17:25:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 7603 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Oct 2009 17:25:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail3.caviumnetworks.com (HELO mail3.caviumnetworks.com) (12.108.191.235) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:25:47 +0000 Received: from caexch01.caveonetworks.com (Not Verified[192.168.16.9]) by mail3.caviumnetworks.com with MailMarshal (v6,5,4,7535) id ; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:24:53 -0700 Received: from caexch01.caveonetworks.com ([192.168.16.9]) by caexch01.caveonetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:24:54 -0700 Received: from dd1.caveonetworks.com ([12.108.191.236]) by caexch01.caveonetworks.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:24:54 -0700 Message-ID: <4AE9CFE5.5030700@caviumnetworks.com> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:25:00 -0000 From: David Daney User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] design question re: watchpoint target methods References: <20091029145817.GO24340@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20091029145817.GO24340@adacore.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: 2009-10/txt/msg00687.txt.bz2 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