Re: [PATCH] Implement "info proc mappings" for NetBSD

Kamil Rytarowski
2020-03-26T23:25:50Z

On 25.03.2020 17:36, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 3/20/20 11:50 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>>> "Kamil" == Kamil Rytarowski <n54@gmx.com> writes:
>>
>> Kamil> I see. I prefer to keep this called obfd, as it matches the FreeBSD code
>> Kamil> more closely. If we want to rename it, we shall do it also in FreeBSD.
>>
>> Well, that FreeBSD code is wrong too...
>
> I looked, and I think that name was just inherited. The callback argument commonly
> passed to this function is in fact the bfd for a core file being generated (e.g.
> from gcore_memory_sections) and other functions like objfile_find_memory_regions()
> still use 'obfd' here. I think it's perfectly reasonable to rename the
> variable. The exec target uses 'data' which it gained when it became a C++ class
> instead of setting to_find_memory_regions to objfile_find_memory_regions directly.
>

OK, I can rename obfd to data.

>>>> What if they stop matching?
>>
>> Kamil> Not a concern.
>>
>> Kamil> If that will ever change, it will be patched, same as the other
>> Kamil> existing NetBSD support.
>>
>> How will cross debugging to different versions work in this situation?
>
> From FreeBSD's perspective, we probably won't ever change these bitfields as our
> struct kinfo_vmentry is a public structure that we make ABI promises about that
> is supposed to be the "public" version of internal kernel structures. I suspect
> NetBSD is following a similar model.
>

Yes.

> FWIW, I did the code in the tdep file to support core file debugging and cross
> debugging (which works). I think the Linux tdep code also does info proc
> in the tdep file for similar reasons. In the case of Linux, linux-tdep.c
> handles core dumps, while procfs.c appears to handle native processes.
>
> The formatting of using manual tables, etc. for info proc is also something the
> Linux and procfs backends do. It might indeed be much cleaner to use ui-out
> (and probably more friendly to mi if we did so?)
>

My code is not different to prior art.

So, is this patch fine for merging after the obfd->data rename?