From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15441 invoked by alias); 4 May 2018 16:09:07 -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 15429 invoked by uid 89); 4 May 2018 16:09:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 May 2018 16:09:06 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F5FCFB664; Fri, 4 May 2018 16:09:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12DE811166F4; Fri, 4 May 2018 16:09:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Move core_bfd to program space To: Tom Tromey References: <20180503162234.15371-1-palves@redhat.com> <20180503162234.15371-2-palves@redhat.com> <87r2mr2zt4.fsf@tromey.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 16:09:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87r2mr2zt4.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00093.txt.bz2 On 05/04/2018 04:41 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > > Pedro> This moves the core_bfd global to be a field of the program space. It > Pedro> then replaces core_bfd with a macro to avoid a massive patch -- the > Pedro> same approach taken for various other program space fields. > > I am curious to know whether you would want to remove this macro in the > future. I don't mean that you should do it -- just more a question of > what direction to go. There are other macros like this too: > symfile_objfile, object_files, exec_bfd, ... Yeah, I have no plans to do that myself, but I wouldn't oppose changing it. > Also, I can't remember why I moved core_bfd to the progspace. Would it > be better to have it just be a member of the target? Or maybe in your > design these end up being basically equivalent, because core targets are > inherently single-process? Yeah, I guess program space just felt natural given exec_bfd is there too. Not sure about putting it in the target. Making it a data field of target_ops I think would be odd. It might work if we replaced it with something like (in the multi-target branch): bfd * core_bfd () { if (core_target *core = dynamic_cast (current_inferior ()->process_target ())) return core->core_bfd; return nullptr; } though that's a bit smelly, and when I see dynamic_cast I can't avoid thinking about how inefficient it is. :-) Alternatively, we could make core_bfd() a virtual method of target_ops instead, that has most targets except the core_target target return NULL. Not sure. Putting it in program space just seemed like an easy and OK thing to do. Thanks, Pedro Alves