Re: [PATCH] Handle ObjC OPS in eval.c

[Adam Fedor <fedor@doc.com>]

On Monday, April 21, 2003, at 11:13 AM, Elena Zannoni wrote:

> Adam Fedor writes:
>>
>> On Sunday, April 20, 2003, at 10:13 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:42:49PM -0600, Adam Fedor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The larger problem I have, though, is changing the patch so that I 
>>>> can
>>>> call the objc-lang functions indirectly, so that objc-lang.o does 
>>>> not
>>>> have to be linked in. That seems like a pain.
>>>>
>>>> I think it would be easier to split objc-lang.c into two parts. One
>>>> that
>>>> is architecture independant that I could link in now, and the other
>>>> acitecture dependant part (which is already handled via the language
>>>> vector). Anything wrong with that?
>>>
>>> What would go in the architecture dependant part?  That shouldn't
>>> involve te _language_ vector, it should involve the _gdbarch_ vector,
>>> and go in the already-existing arch files.  I think.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Currently, objc-lang.c has code for determining if an address is the
>> address of one of the Objective-C method dispatch functions. It
>> currently depends on some code that has only been implemented on a few
>> architectures (Aside: This code is only used if gdb is debugging an
>> Objective-C program using the Apple runtime not the GNU runtime, so
>> it's basically only useful on MacOSX/Darwin).
>>
>> Andrew had suggested that we put the objc language calls in the
>> language vector so that we could conditionally compile in objc-lang.o
>> on certain architectures until the architecture dependant code gets
>> fixed (or ported?). Basically it's just a temporary solution to get
>> Objective-C support into gdb. I've already put the architecture
>> dependant calls in the language vector (skip_language_trampoline).
>>
>> I'm not positive what Andrew had intended, but I guess I would have to
>> put all the other Objective-C language functions in a vector as well.
>> However, I think it would be easier just to separate out the
>> architecture dependant part which is, again, conditionally compiled 
>> in,
>> while the rest of objc-lang.c is compiled in by default.
>
> Ah, that. Ok, but this has nothing to do with the patch in this thread.
> You can commit this patch omitting the if0-ed part.
>

No. gdb won't link with the patch included without objc-lang.o linked 
in.