Re: [RFC] TARGET_OBJECT_WCOOKIE

[Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>]

>>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)?

Andrew