* Is the current KOD code useful?
@ 2006-01-19 20:53 Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-20 20:53 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2006-01-19 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
The Kernel Object Display framework never really took off, as far as I can
see. It's got exactly one supported OS in the GDB sources, which is just
called Cisco (presumably IOS). It's had no non-mechanical changes since it
was contributed, around 2000.
I'm fixing up the target_xfer_partial interface, as discussed yesterday.
It carries around a pretty sizable wart for KOD involving querying the
buffer size (which as far as I can tell doesn't work, anyway). Rather than
fix it, if this is obsolete we should remove it.
Does anyone but Cisco use this? Do even they still use it in its current
form? I have no idea if anyone on this list can answer these questions;
if no one can, I suspect this code has reached the end of its useful life.
For now I'm just going to skip over that file.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Is the current KOD code useful?
2006-01-19 20:53 Is the current KOD code useful? Daniel Jacobowitz
@ 2006-01-20 20:53 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-20 22:21 ` Jim Blandy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2006-01-20 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb; +Cc: Fernando Nasser
Copying this to Fernando, since I belatedly noticed Fernando's entry
in MAINTAINERS for this today. Oops!
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 11:52:27AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> The Kernel Object Display framework never really took off, as far as I can
> see. It's got exactly one supported OS in the GDB sources, which is just
> called Cisco (presumably IOS). It's had no non-mechanical changes since it
> was contributed, around 2000.
>
> I'm fixing up the target_xfer_partial interface, as discussed yesterday.
> It carries around a pretty sizable wart for KOD involving querying the
> buffer size (which as far as I can tell doesn't work, anyway). Rather than
> fix it, if this is obsolete we should remove it.
>
> Does anyone but Cisco use this? Do even they still use it in its current
> form? I have no idea if anyone on this list can answer these questions;
> if no one can, I suspect this code has reached the end of its useful life.
>
> For now I'm just going to skip over that file.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Is the current KOD code useful?
2006-01-20 20:53 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
@ 2006-01-20 22:21 ` Jim Blandy
2006-01-20 22:33 ` Jim Blandy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jim Blandy @ 2006-01-20 22:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb, Fernando Nasser
On 1/20/06, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> Copying this to Fernando, since I belatedly noticed Fernando's entry
> in MAINTAINERS for this today. Oops!
Michael Snyder has been working a lot with Cisco of late; he's offered
to ask around there to see if people are still using it, for what
that's worth.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Is the current KOD code useful?
2006-01-20 22:21 ` Jim Blandy
@ 2006-01-20 22:33 ` Jim Blandy
2006-01-21 10:09 ` Mark Kettenis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jim Blandy @ 2006-01-20 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb, Fernando Nasser
On 1/20/06, Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com> wrote:
> On 1/20/06, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> > Copying this to Fernando, since I belatedly noticed Fernando's entry
> > in MAINTAINERS for this today. Oops!
>
> Michael Snyder has been working a lot with Cisco of late; he's offered
> to ask around there to see if people are still using it, for what
> that's worth.
The word from Cisco is that they're not using KOD these days.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Is the current KOD code useful?
2006-01-20 22:33 ` Jim Blandy
@ 2006-01-21 10:09 ` Mark Kettenis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mark Kettenis @ 2006-01-21 10:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jimb; +Cc: gdb, fnasser
> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:22:37 -0800
> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
>
> On 1/20/06, Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com> wrote:
> > On 1/20/06, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> > > Copying this to Fernando, since I belatedly noticed Fernando's entry
> > > in MAINTAINERS for this today. Oops!
> >
> > Michael Snyder has been working a lot with Cisco of late; he's offered
> > to ask around there to see if people are still using it, for what
> > that's worth.
>
> The word from Cisco is that they're not using KOD these days.
Then I propose that, unless Fernando objects, we remove KOD from gdb.
Mark
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-01-20 22:33 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-01-19 20:53 Is the current KOD code useful? Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-20 20:53 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-20 22:21 ` Jim Blandy
2006-01-20 22:33 ` Jim Blandy
2006-01-21 10:09 ` Mark Kettenis
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox