From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8298 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2002 22:44:48 -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 8291 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2002 22:44:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2002 22:44:47 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18FOPt-00024y-00; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 18:45:01 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18FMXU-0007l4-00; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:44:44 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:44:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Proposed enhancement to RDA, the remote debug agent Message-ID: <20021122224443.GA22925@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <3DDE811B.BD6AD364@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DDE811B.BD6AD364@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00331.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 11:10:19AM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > Hello, > > I'm looking for feedback, mostly on my infrastructure approach for > the following addition to RDA. In one sentence, I'm going to add > introspect support. [Seconded that RDA probably merits its own list.] > The diff below probably won't apply cleanly, but will convey the > sense of my proposed first-step. > > Basically, I'll add a new subdirectory rda/introspect, and tweak > the top-level rda makefile and configure to include it. I'll make > the top-level remote protocol parser recognize the 'Q' and 'q' msgs > that implement introspect, and have it call functions that do all > the work. Then I'll implement two separate libraries in the > introspect directory -- one that simply provides empty stubs to > satisfy those calls (for targets that don't implement introspect), > and a second that actually implements introspect. > > The first check-in will include only the dummy library. > > Anybody suggest any improvements to this approach? Sounds reasonable to me. I look forward to seeing the rest of the code... doing something similar to gdbserver is (of course) on my list. As they continue to evolve in the same direction... -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer