From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26579 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2004 19:26:14 -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 26561 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2004 19:26:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Feb 2004 19:26:13 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1Anjhz-0001Np-0D; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 14:26:11 -0500 Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 19:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] TARGET_OBJECT_WCOOKIE Message-ID: <20040202192610.GA5207@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Mark Kettenis , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200402011702.i11H2HEZ000487@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <20040201202313.GA20053@nevyn.them.org> <401E9E9C.9080100@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <401E9E9C.9080100@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 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