From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23012 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2014 14:04:14 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 23001 invoked by uid 89); 20 Jun 2014 14:04:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 14:04:12 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5KE493o022365 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 20 Jun 2014 10:04:09 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-103.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.103]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5KE48M9025500 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Jun 2014 10:04:08 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Yao Qi Cc: Subject: Re: [RFC] auto-generate most target debug methods References: <1403208237-27023-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <53A3E9A8.4080305@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 14:04:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <53A3E9A8.4080305@codesourcery.com> (Yao Qi's message of "Fri, 20 Jun 2014 15:58:32 +0800") Message-ID: <87oaxnad9k.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00747.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Yao" == Yao Qi writes: Yao> This function should be renamed to target_debug_print_signal, for Yao> example, and typedef unsigned char * signal, if I understand your Yao> script correctly. Yeah, that would be cleaner. I'll fix it up. >> + A few methods are still handled explicitly in target.c: >> + target_fetch_registers target_store_registers target_xfer_partial Yao> This isn't valid to me. I do see debug_fetch_registers, Yao> debug_store_registers and debug_xfer_partial are generated. The comment is a bit off. target_store_registers still has some targetdebug code to call debug_print_register, which can't really be handled using the type-based method. to_xfer_partial has a debug method generated but due to the way target_xfer_partial is written, the debug method is never actually called. Note that a similar issue exists in the current code with debug_to_open -- I think it can't ever be called because the target's to_open is passed directly to add_cmd. Tom