Re: [RFC] TARGET_OBJECT_WCOOKIE

Andrew Cagney
2004-02-02T19:01:49Z

>>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