Why is the LIN-LVP target not stacked?

Why is the LIN-LVP target not stacked?

[John S. Kallal]

Why are the target routine in the file lin-lwp.c not put onto 
the target stack with a stratum level between thread_stratum and
process_stratum?  
\x18
Currently the thread_stratum routine of thread-db.c call routines 
in lin-lwp.c.  Then the routines in lin-lwp.c directly call 
routines at process_stratum level.  The direct calls in lin-lwp.c 
bypass the calling vectors of the process stack. 

If the LIN_LWP target was stacked it would help with my current
work.

Re: Why is the LIN-LVP target not stacked?

[Mark Kettenis]

"John S. Kallal" <jskallal@home.com> writes:

> Why are the target routine in the file lin-lwp.c not put onto 
> the target stack with a stratum level between thread_stratum and
> process_stratum?  

I think it should.  However when I checked in the code to see whether
it worked as well for other people as it did for me, I didn't want to
make the necessary changes to the rest of GDB.  Feel free to submit
any patches.  On second thought, perhaps this should be discussed a
bit more first...

Mark

Re: Why is the LIN-LVP target not stacked?

[Andrew Cagney]

> "John S. Kallal" <jskallal@home.com> writes:
> 
> 
>> Why are the target routine in the file lin-lwp.c not put onto 
>> the target stack with a stratum level between thread_stratum and
>> process_stratum?  
> 
> 
> I think it should.  However when I checked in the code to see whether
> it worked as well for other people as it did for me, I didn't want to
> make the necessary changes to the rest of GDB.  Feel free to submit
> any patches.  On second thought, perhaps this should be discussed a
> bit more first...


Yes, the idea is correct.  The problem, as you've probably noticed is 
that the target stack isn't really a stack :-(  Cleanly slipping a new 
layer in between thread_stratum and process_stratum isn't as easy as it 
should be.

However, having said that I'm very interested in changes that start 
converting the target layers into a real stack.

	Andrew