From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24505 invoked by alias); 21 Oct 2002 15:33:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24498 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2002 15:33:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Oct 2002 15:33:17 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 183fTr-0002jd-00; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:32:39 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 183eYR-0006E4-00; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:33:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:33:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Jim Blandy , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: HP catchpoint code Message-ID: <20021021153319.GA23624@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Jim Blandy , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20020812153334.GA30891@nevyn.them.org> <20020813214211.GA9735@nevyn.them.org> <3D598150.1000106@ges.redhat.com> <20021018221617.GA4804@nevyn.them.org> <3DB418F1.2050607@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DB418F1.2050607@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00149.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 11:10:41AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 05:59:44PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >>I don't think we can start writing the PA obituary just yet. > >> > >>Something to-the-point is probably in order as part of the 5.3 > >>announcement. > > > > > >You're right. But we can write the obituary on some of its > >catchpoints, I think. > > > >For lack of an HP/UX maintainer, I'd like to disable fork/vfork/exec > >catchpoints and following on HP/UX. This is a necessary first step in > >submitting the GNU/Linux version of these features; because I want it > >to work for both local and remote debugging, I had to segment it > >somewhat differently. > > > >I'd also like to kill the clone_and_follow_inferior code, which was > >never really functional; the switch is commented out with a reference > >to an HP/UX 10.20 bug. We don't have the infrastructure to debug two > >processes at once right now, anyway; and we don't have a general way to > >clone the debugger and get a second terminal. > > > >Unless someone has an objection, I'll submit a patch to do this on > >Monday. > > (Everything on the internet takes a week :-) > > Wouldn't it be possible to HP/UX ify the existing code and then persue > the new in parallel? (eg LOC_HP_THREAD_LOCAL_STATIC). > > I think the code base is otherwize exposed to the problem of having the > existing functionality removed without having the new code in place. > Once the new framework is working I think you're in a stronger position > to argue for the removal of that old code. Well, I could do this. If the code that's there now were for a supported target, I'd agree it was the way to go. But it's for an _unmaintained_ target, and one that historically no one has been willing to take care of. And I managed to kill an awful lot of confusing junk in the supposedly platform-independent infrun code when I knifed it in my working tree. The logic makes much more sense now. Yes, I removed some hacks which may be necessary on HP/UX for this feature to work; but at the same time they belong in HP-specific code, and they could probably be implemented in a cleaner fashion, and if someone wants to resupport this platform latter I'm willing to work with them to find less intrusive ways to do it. I think that arguing for the removal of a feature which only works on a platform that no one maintains, and that often doesn't even build, is a pretty strong position to begin with. This is where I argue again that we should just remove the HP/UX code and be done with it, since no one is willing to care for it properly - certainly I'm not, without even access to an HP/UX system. As C++ maintainer I even asked on the list several times for access to an HP system or testing on one, and couldn't find a volunteer for either. And carrying around the burden of this code makes working on supported platforms much more awkward. In summary, I'd rather yank it; mark the bits in HP-specific files as //OBSOLETE; and go on to support this feature on what seems to be a more useful and supported platform to GDB's current user and maintainer base. Does anyone else have an opinion? If the consensus is that I'm out of line, I guess it's time to go back to an older working tree and start renaming... -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer