From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>,
GDB Discussion <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [multi-arch] The frame as the global parameter (long, important)
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:44:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1010226214342.ZM12978@ocotillo.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3A970102.68681EB2@cygnus.com>
On Feb 23, 7:32pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
[Big picture snipped]
> Given all this, I'd like to propose the following structural changes to
> GDB.
>
> o The frame have an architecture
> attached to it.
>
> As an intermediate hack, current
> architecture and current frame would
> remain as globals.
>
> o All the functions that apply to
> the frame be parameterized with a
> frame argument and modified to
> use the frame's architecture.
>
> o (Per previous e-mail)
> The frame and its registers be more
> clearly separated from the target
> (in particular the regcache).
>
> Most calls that go directly to the
> regcache will instead go via the
> current frame.
>
> A consequence of this is that the
> current need for the RAW / PSEUDO
> / NATURAL register mess will be
> eliminated. Yessss!
>
> While looking simple, these changes are certainly everything but. Every
> frame / regcache / memcache access will need to be examined / modified.
> Fortunately, most of these uses can be examined independently so the
> work can be carried out incrementally.
>
> Clearly this change, on its own, won't be sufficient to make GDB
> multi-arch. I would argue, however, that like the initial multi-arch
> work, it is a clear step in the right direction.
>
> With that in mind, I'm looking for comments, questions and suggestions.
Andrew,
The big picture that you painted certainly looks reasonable. But even
if it didn't, I think the structural changes that your propose above
make sense even when considered on a much smaller scale...
It makes sense to associate an architecture with a frame so that we
can cleanly implement support for targets with mixed architectures
like ARM/THUMB or IA-64/IA-32.
Also, from a software engineering standpoint, I think it makes sense
to eliminate as many of the globals as possible and pass parameters
instead. Any time one or more of the parameters to a function are
passed implicitly via a global, you're just asking for trouble later
on.
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-02-26 13:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-02-23 16:34 Andrew Cagney
2001-02-26 13:12 ` Nick Duffek
2001-02-26 13:53 ` Kevin Buettner
2001-02-26 15:27 ` Nick Duffek
2001-02-26 15:55 ` Kevin Buettner
2001-02-26 14:42 ` Andrew Cagney
2001-02-26 13:44 ` Kevin Buettner [this message]
[not found] <983058218.3463.ezmlm@sources.redhat.com>
2001-02-26 10:17 ` Jim Ingham
2001-02-26 13:16 ` Nick Duffek
2001-02-26 13:27 ` Jim Ingham
2001-02-26 13:28 ` Per Bothner
2001-02-26 13:50 ` Andrew Cagney
2001-02-26 14:52 ` Jim Ingham
2001-02-26 16:28 ` Andrew Cagney
2001-02-26 18:14 ` Jim Ingham
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1010226214342.ZM12978@ocotillo.lan \
--to=kevinb@cygnus.com \
--cc=ac131313@cygnus.com \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox