Re: Get rid of linux-thread-db.c:target_beneath

[teawater <teawater@gmail.com>]

Hi Pedro,

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 23:50, Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Friday 06 February 2009 04:56:58, teawater wrote:
>> But we still meet the problem that if a function of beneath target is
>> NULL, current target use find_target_beneath to get the beneath
>> function pointer is not easy and dangerous like process record meet,
>> right?
>
> linux-thread-db.c always sits on top of linux-nat.c currently, so
> it is safe to use in the cases I adjusted.  When it isn't "safe",
> linux-thread-db.c already checks for NULL-ness.
>
>> What about make a interface to support safe beneath function?
>
> For now, you can check that the function pointer is NULL before
> calling it.  If it is NULL, then try the next target
> beneath, etc.  See target_attach, target_flash_erase, etc.  You
> could do something similar in the record.c target.  Things
> are cleaner on the target method implementation side
> if the target method takes a "this" pointer, like the one I'm
> adding to target_wait.
>
> If you do that, you get rid of the record_beneath_to_resume,
> record_beneath_to_wait, record_beneath_to_store_registers, etc.
> function pointer hacks you had.  The wrinkle that has, is that your
> method ends up responsible for doing the default if no target
> implements the method.  IMO, that would acceptible for
> now.  But, it can be fixed.
>

I see.

So I make a new patch for it.  Could you please help me review it?
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-02/msg00187.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-02/msg00188.html

And I make some new patches to fix the format errors.  Please help me review it.
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-02/msg00189.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-02/msg00190.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-02/msg00192.html

Thanks,
Hui