From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31943 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2009 03:06:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 31935 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jul 2009 03:06:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_JMF_BL,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout7.012.net.il (HELO mtaout7.012.net.il) (84.95.2.19) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 03:06:19 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout7.012.net.il by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KMH00200V2IFT00@i-mtaout7.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:06:16 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.249.41]) by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KMH009I5VAFCP70@i-mtaout7.012.net.il>; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:06:16 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:20:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFA] Use data cache for stack accesses In-reply-to: <7e6c8d660907081308r13bff580rdcf4822c77df8403@mail.gmail.com> To: Jacob Potter Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83d48azhav.fsf@gnu.org> References: <7e6c8d660907081308r13bff580rdcf4822c77df8403@mail.gmail.com> 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: 2009-07/txt/msg00277.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 13:08:00 -0700 > From: Jacob Potter > > This is the second half of the pair of patches I first submitted last > week. Differences from the first pass are: > > - Added a NEWS entry for the new option > - Changed the stackcache option to default to on, rather than off > - Got rid of the unnecessary new value_at_lazy_stack() function > - Flush the cache when switching inferiors. Thanks. > I haven't changed the new read_stack function to take a target_ops, > since it's intended to be consistent with read_memory(); converting > read_memory() to take target_ops would be out of the scope of this > patch (it and target_read_memory have a *lot* of callers). Other than > that, I think I've addressed all the issues with the first pass; is > there anything else to fix? The NEWS entry is approved. But we need a patch for the manual that describes the new command and removes the description of remotecache.