From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4333 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2004 21:44:48 -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 4320 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2004 21:44:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fed1rmmtao10.cox.net) (68.230.241.29) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 28 Jun 2004 21:44:47 -0000 Received: from ip68-3-5-250.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.3.5.250]) by fed1rmmtao10.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02 201-2131-111-104-20040324) with SMTP id <20040628214445.IYFV5491.fed1rmmtao10.cox.net@ip68-3-5-250.ph.ph.cox.net> for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:44:45 -0400 Received: (qmail 3899 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2004 21:41:41 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO cox.net) (127.0.0.1) by ip68-3-5-250.ph.ph.cox.net with SMTP; 28 Jun 2004 21:41:41 -0000 Message-ID: <40E09084.70108@cox.net> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:45:00 -0000 From: "Stephen P. Smith" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Buettner , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: shared library support hookin the remote.c References: <40AD1DA8.3090809@cox.net> <40AE69AB.7000004@cox.net> <20040611141424.2bed79f7@saguaro> <40DA349C.6080607@cox.net> <20040628134303.20e1cff0@saguaro> In-Reply-To: <20040628134303.20e1cff0@saguaro> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00279.txt.bz2 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. 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. sps