From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19567 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2012 19:33:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 19559 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2012 19:33:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:33:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0GJWx4F019828 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:33:19 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0GHiKAl019288; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:44:21 -0500 Message-ID: <4F1461F4.6060702@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:38:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ulrich Weigand CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc v2][0/6] Remote /proc file access References: <201201161728.q0GHSW4D024277@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <201201161728.q0GHSW4D024277@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-01/txt/msg00571.txt.bz2 On 01/16/2012 05:28 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Pedro Alves wrote: >> I've been through the series, and it looks good to me. >> Thanks a lot! If this doesn't work out in the end, I'll certainly help >> sort it out. > > Thanks for the review! > >> I've given a couple comments in reply to the patches directly. I'm leaving >> some general-ish comments here: >> >> - We could consider making "info proc" work with the default run >> target if the current target can't handle it, so that >> "info proc PID" works even when not debugging a process yet, >> like today. > > Maybe. On the other hand, once we've switched to the gdbarch based > implementation, it would automatically work when not yet debugging > a process anyway, so I'm not sure this is really necessary ... Hmm. I though the target_file_xxx routines would all fail, hitting the default when no target implement the methods that way. IOW, I was thinking that we'd need to pass the struct target_ops pointer down to the gdbarch callback so the callback could work with the correct target. -- Pedro Alves