From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30275 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2008 04:16:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 30256 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Oct 2008 04:16:04 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout4.012.net.il (HELO mtaout4.012.net.il) (84.95.2.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 04:15:23 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.192.143]) by i_mtaout4.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0K9D00D8PQISYN00@i_mtaout4.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 06:16:05 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 04:16:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: catch load/unload not implemented on any target (remove?) In-reply-to: <20081027004044.GA3907@adacore.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <20081027004044.GA3907@adacore.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2008-10/txt/msg00651.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:40:44 -0700 > From: Joel Brobecker > > I am conflicted as to what to do in the meantime: Leave the code as is, > and update the documentation that this feature is currently implemented > on no platform. Or remove the code entirely. > > I am leaning towards removing the code entirely, for several reasons: > - Documentating a feature as unimplemented seems silly; > - I don't think there is much in the current code that once can > reuse in order to implement this feature properly > - When someone is ready to implement this feature again for his platform, > there shouldn't be much to do in terms of infrastructure work to do at > the breakpoint module level. So it shouldn't be very difficult to > implement. There might be one little difficulty based on the fact > that some architectures will implement this feature using a phyical > breakpoint (eg: svr4) whereas others won't (eg: Windows), but that > shouldn't be very difficult to handle by using the right bp_kind. > > Thoughts? Given what you describe, I'm okay with removing that code.