From: Adam Fedor <fedor@doc.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
Cc: GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Trivialize objc-lang.c FETCH_ARGUMENT
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 02:09:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5D31A204-752F-11D7-A2CD-000A277AC1A4@doc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3EA5EF33.5EC2F8CE@redhat.com>
On Tuesday, April 22, 2003, at 07:41 PM, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Adam Fedor wrote:
>>
>> Well, I thought I'd at least try to see if this patch would be ok.
>> Here
>> I replace the arcitecture dependant FETCH_ARGUMENT with a trivial
>> implementation that does nothing. This would allow objc-lang.o to be
>> linked into gdb and I commit most or all of the remaining Objective-C
>> patches. Then I could work on fixing FETCH_ARGUMENT at my leasure...
>
> That seems reasonable. By the way, if there's been an ongoing
> discussion,
> I haven't followed it. Why is it that you need to do this in an
> architecture-dependent way? GDB should have enough debug info to
> do this cleanly, shouldn't it?
>
It's possible, although these particular functions are in the Apple
runtime and highly optimized, possibly in assembly. I'm not sure if the
information is available. I'll have to look at it more, but I couldn't
even test the changes since it only works on MacOSX/Darwin and GNU gdb
doesn't compile on Darwin.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Adam Fedor <fedor@doc.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
Cc: GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Trivialize objc-lang.c FETCH_ARGUMENT
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 02:00:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5D31A204-752F-11D7-A2CD-000A277AC1A4@doc.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20030423020000.aE52aNhXshZzYcJXOHyB2n6VankEv5qJEjnS1TR4s4Y@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3EA5EF33.5EC2F8CE@redhat.com>
On Tuesday, April 22, 2003, at 07:41 PM, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Adam Fedor wrote:
>>
>> Well, I thought I'd at least try to see if this patch would be ok.
>> Here
>> I replace the arcitecture dependant FETCH_ARGUMENT with a trivial
>> implementation that does nothing. This would allow objc-lang.o to be
>> linked into gdb and I commit most or all of the remaining Objective-C
>> patches. Then I could work on fixing FETCH_ARGUMENT at my leasure...
>
> That seems reasonable. By the way, if there's been an ongoing
> discussion,
> I haven't followed it. Why is it that you need to do this in an
> architecture-dependent way? GDB should have enough debug info to
> do this cleanly, shouldn't it?
>
It's possible, although these particular functions are in the Apple
runtime and highly optimized, possibly in assembly. I'm not sure if the
information is available. I'll have to look at it more, but I couldn't
even test the changes since it only works on MacOSX/Darwin and GNU gdb
doesn't compile on Darwin.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Adam Fedor <fedor@doc.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
Cc: GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Trivialize objc-lang.c FETCH_ARGUMENT
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:32:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5D31A204-752F-11D7-A2CD-000A277AC1A4@doc.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20030423083200.qDgpjawI30J1oT6ez7SFY6QbTOofcMMsaX0vGL6Hrwc@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3EA5EF33.5EC2F8CE@redhat.com>
On Tuesday, April 22, 2003, at 07:41 PM, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Adam Fedor wrote:
>>
>> Well, I thought I'd at least try to see if this patch would be ok.
>> Here
>> I replace the arcitecture dependant FETCH_ARGUMENT with a trivial
>> implementation that does nothing. This would allow objc-lang.o to be
>> linked into gdb and I commit most or all of the remaining Objective-C
>> patches. Then I could work on fixing FETCH_ARGUMENT at my leasure...
>
> That seems reasonable. By the way, if there's been an ongoing
> discussion,
> I haven't followed it. Why is it that you need to do this in an
> architecture-dependent way? GDB should have enough debug info to
> do this cleanly, shouldn't it?
>
It's possible, although these particular functions are in the Apple
runtime and highly optimized, possibly in assembly. I'm not sure if the
information is available. I'll have to look at it more, but I couldn't
even test the changes since it only works on MacOSX/Darwin and GNU gdb
doesn't compile on Darwin.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Adam Fedor <fedor@doc.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
Cc: GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Trivialize objc-lang.c FETCH_ARGUMENT
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 03:07:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5D31A204-752F-11D7-A2CD-000A277AC1A4@doc.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20030423030700.uQjDmFpmv8FNKHolL4Y2RRoRDNJlAuJfvyyzg5l77QQ@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3EA5EF33.5EC2F8CE@redhat.com>
On Tuesday, April 22, 2003, at 07:41 PM, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Adam Fedor wrote:
>>
>> Well, I thought I'd at least try to see if this patch would be ok.
>> Here
>> I replace the arcitecture dependant FETCH_ARGUMENT with a trivial
>> implementation that does nothing. This would allow objc-lang.o to be
>> linked into gdb and I commit most or all of the remaining Objective-C
>> patches. Then I could work on fixing FETCH_ARGUMENT at my leasure...
>
> That seems reasonable. By the way, if there's been an ongoing
> discussion,
> I haven't followed it. Why is it that you need to do this in an
> architecture-dependent way? GDB should have enough debug info to
> do this cleanly, shouldn't it?
>
It's possible, although these particular functions are in the Apple
runtime and highly optimized, possibly in assembly. I'm not sure if the
information is available. I'll have to look at it more, but I couldn't
even test the changes since it only works on MacOSX/Darwin and GNU gdb
doesn't compile on Darwin.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-04-23 2:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-04-22 14:48 Adam Fedor
2003-04-23 1:41 ` Michael Snyder
2003-04-23 2:09 ` Adam Fedor [this message]
2003-04-23 2:00 ` Adam Fedor
2003-04-23 2:06 ` Michael Snyder
2003-04-23 14:08 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-04-23 3:07 ` Adam Fedor
2003-04-23 8:32 ` Adam Fedor
2003-04-25 3:21 ` Andrew Cagney
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=5D31A204-752F-11D7-A2CD-000A277AC1A4@doc.com \
--to=fedor@doc.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=msnyder@redhat.com \
/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