From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 113308 invoked by alias); 30 Jun 2016 18:40:15 -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 113297 invoked by uid 89); 30 Jun 2016 18:40:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=transfer 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; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:40:13 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80AD180088; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:40:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u5UIeB0h009846; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:40:11 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Optimize memory_xfer_partial for remote To: Don Breazeal , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , "qiyaoltc@gmail.com" References: <1467058970-62136-1-git-send-email-donb@codesourcery.com> <6e4787d9-f6d5-641e-ffd5-1dd255806b3b@redhat.com> <57755AC2.9090008@codesourcery.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:40:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <57755AC2.9090008@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-06/txt/msg00561.txt.bz2 On 06/30/2016 06:45 PM, Don Breazeal wrote: > That makes sense to me. If it returns ULONGEST_MAX then the rest of the > patch can stay as-is. Something like this? > > +/* The default implementation for the to_get_memory_xfer_limit method. > + The default limit is essentially "no limit". */ > + > +static ULONGEST > +default_get_memory_xfer_limit (struct target_ops *self) > +{ > + return ULONGEST_MAX; > +} Agreed. Though if you use TARGET_DEFAULT_RETURN, then you don't even need that function: /* Return the limit on the size of any single memory transfer for the target. The default limit is essentially "no limit". */ ULONGEST (*to_get_memory_xfer_limit) (struct target_ops *) TARGET_DEFAULT_RETURN (ULONGEST_MAX); Thanks, Pedro Alves