From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Cc: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] TARGET_OBJECT_WCOOKIE
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 19:26:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040202192610.GA5207@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <401E9E9C.9080100@gnu.org>
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 02:01:48PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> >>The second issue I'd like your opinion on is related to the patch. I
> >>followed the example set by TARGET_OBJECT_UNWIND_TABLE in having a
> >>macro (NATIVE_XFER_WCOOKIE) to invoke the native-specific function
> >>that fetches the cookie. This macro would be defined in the nm.h
> >>file, but wasn't it our goal to get rid of the nm.h file sooner rather
> >>than later? Shouldn't we add another method for these kinds of hooks?
> >>The obvious alternatives are:
> >>
> >>a) Use a public function pointer, which is initialized to some
> >> do-nothing-and-return-minus-one function by default. This function
> >> pointer would be overridden by some code in the appropraite *-nat.c
> >> files.
> >>b) Use a private function pointer, and provide a function to set that
> >> pointer, along the lines of inftarg_set_find_memory_regions().
> >>Opinions?
>
> It sux less than some of the other existing alternatives - in particular
> the way certain /proc or ptrace specific functions just happen to be
> linked in. Makes a real mess of the idea of having both /proc and
> ptrace support in a single executable.
>
> >Personally, I think the -nat files should have a chance to edit
> >child_ops, or provide their own version of child_ops. This would
> >eliminate 90% of the gunk in nm* files which is checked in the various
> >inf* files implementing child_ops.
>
> Have "proc" and "ptrace" export functions for creating fairly generic
> target ops and then have *-nat "inherit" from it (or push on-top of it)?
Yeah, something like that.
At the very least, we could reduce the existing mess of macros to one.
After child_ops is initialized, call a native macro which can override
elements of it.
Then, later on, we can remove explicit references to child_ops (they're
scattered all over GDB last time I checked) and make the native targets
fill in their own ops.
Sound good?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-02 19:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-01 17:02 Mark Kettenis
2004-02-01 20:23 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-02-02 19:01 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-02-02 19:26 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
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=20040202192610.GA5207@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=cagney@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=kettenis@chello.nl \
/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