* Why is the LIN-LVP target not stacked?
@ 2001-05-17 18:44 John S. Kallal
2001-05-18 8:51 ` Mark Kettenis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: John S. Kallal @ 2001-05-17 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is the LIN-LVP target not stacked?
2001-05-17 18:44 Why is the LIN-LVP target not stacked? John S. Kallal
@ 2001-05-18 8:51 ` Mark Kettenis
2001-06-06 3:42 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Mark Kettenis @ 2001-05-18 8:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John S. Kallal; +Cc: gdb
"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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Why is the LIN-LVP target not stacked?
2001-05-18 8:51 ` Mark Kettenis
@ 2001-06-06 3:42 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2001-06-06 3:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Kettenis; +Cc: John S. Kallal, gdb
> "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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-06-06 3:42 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-05-17 18:44 Why is the LIN-LVP target not stacked? John S. Kallal
2001-05-18 8:51 ` Mark Kettenis
2001-06-06 3:42 ` Andrew Cagney
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox