From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4860 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2014 15:35:52 -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 19227 invoked by uid 89); 29 Jul 2014 15:17:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-yk0-f172.google.com Received: from mail-yk0-f172.google.com (HELO mail-yk0-f172.google.com) (209.85.160.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:17:14 +0000 Received: by mail-yk0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 10so5620981ykt.3 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 08:17:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.162.7 with SMTP id x7mr4037196yhk.6.1406647031816; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 08:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.42.70 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 08:17:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53D7AE46.8080303@redhat.com> References: <1405711635-1102-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <53D7AE46.8080303@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] baby step toward multi-target From: Doug Evans To: Pedro Alves Cc: Tom Tromey , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00752.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 07/18/2014 08:27 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > >> If this approach seems reasonable then it's not too hard to pull over >> some of the other target conversions from the branch. > > Seems reasonable. We may or not end up doing things completely > different wrt to the identify issue and target is pushed/not pushed, > but meanwhile this lets us progress with making it possible to have > different instances of a target, so it seems good forward progress. > > The series looked good to me. I'd like to review this for a bit more. I'd like to understand the tradeoffs of this more: >>This little series, on the other hand, takes a less invasive approach. >>The idea here is that rather than doing a huge target_ops split, >>instead just sometimes make copies of the target_ops when pushing. >>This lets the copies keep their own state; copies are needed in the >>long run because multiple target stacks will be active and a given >>target_ops only has one "beneath" pointer. Thanks.