From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13991 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2004 20:13:36 -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 13972 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2004 20:13:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hector.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.13) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2004 20:13:34 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.147.87]) by hector.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.4-GR) with ESMTP id ABS36876; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:14:25 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 20:13:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Mark Kettenis Message-Id: <9003-Sun01Feb2004220849+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <200402011748.i11HmJRR000558@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> (message from Mark Kettenis on Sun, 1 Feb 2004 18:48:19 +0100 (CET)) Subject: Re: [RFC] Non-executable stack on SPARC Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200401252350.i0PNoB1O021806@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <200401261242.i0QCgUoB026534@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <200402011748.i11HmJRR000558@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 18:48:19 +0100 (CET) > From: Mark Kettenis > > My line of thought is that it's IMHO fundamentally wrong to push > target- or architecture-specific details into the application level of > GDB, which is what infrun.c is. infrun.c should deal with high-level > logic of handling a stopped inferior, it should not IMHO know about > intricacies of specific targets. > > The question is to what extent this is an intricacy of a specific > target. I think that the set of signals, apart of SIGTRAP, that can express a breakpoint on a given target/architecture is something infrun.c shouldn't know about.