From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6371 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2004 00:21:28 -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 6362 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2004 00:21:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Jun 2004 00:21:26 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5T0LQe3013331 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:21:26 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5T0LQ017615; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:21:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-37.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.37]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i5T0LQOD002465; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:21:26 -0400 Received: from saguaro (saguaro.lan [192.168.64.2]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.11/8.12.10) with SMTP id i5T0LK7Z013357; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:21:20 -0700 Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:55:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: "Stephen P. Smith" Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: shared library support hookin the remote.c Message-Id: <20040628172120.2844044d@saguaro> In-Reply-To: <40E09084.70108@cox.net> References: <40AD1DA8.3090809@cox.net> <40AE69AB.7000004@cox.net> <20040611141424.2bed79f7@saguaro> <40DA349C.6080607@cox.net> <20040628134303.20e1cff0@saguaro> <40E09084.70108@cox.net> Organization: Red Hat Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00282.txt.bz2 On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:41:24 -0700 "Stephen P. Smith" wrote: > Kevin Buettner wrote: > > >I think we need more detail. Which functions in remote.c would > >be affected? What would the interface look like and how would > >it be used? > > It would affetc remote_async_wait() and remote_wait(). From the last > time, I know that we don't want to > add extraneous functionality to the remote protocol unless the target > requires it. This method would abstact > that out. How does the remote target communicate the necessary details to GDB then? It sounds to me as though you want to add the hook so that you can add a private protocol extension. IMO, it's better to hash out the details of a public remote protocol extension for shared library support. > What I haven't figured out is the preferred means of intializing such a > variable across the two subsystems. > > There would be a statement something like this: > if ( remote_protocol_solib_hook_funcion ) > (*remote_protocol_solib_hook_funcion) (); > > Does something like this seem reasonable? > > >Also, please note that I am not the maintainer of remote.c... > > True - but the use of this pointer would be in the solib area. Since > the target is always queried, this is the way the solib > subsystem would know when it is safe to ask about shared library values > that it needs from a particular target. This may indeed be a reasonable way to approach things, but I'd like to first understand how communication of shared library information between GDB and the stub is accomplished and what the protocol looks like. Kevin