Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Friday 05 June 2009 19:54:54, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote:
> 
>> With corelow.c patched as proposed, on Neutrino I could do this:
>>
>> For NTO, I "hijack" core_ops:
>> static void
>> init_nto_core_ops ()
>> {
>>    struct target_ops *core_ops;
>>
>>    core_ops = find_core_target ();
>>    gdb_assert (core_ops && core_ops->to_shortname != NULL
>>                && !!"core_ops must be initialized first!");
>>    original_core_ops = *core_ops;
>>    core_ops->to_extra_thread_info = 
>> nto_target_extra_thread_info;
>>    core_ops->to_open = nto_core_open;
>>    core_ops->to_xfer_partial = nto_core_xfer_partial;
>>    core_ops->to_pid_to_str = nto_pid_to_str;
>> }
> 
> As I mentioned in the other threads, this is fine as a local change,
> but not so to have in GDB proper, so it does go against
> your goal of pushing all your local changes.  :-/
> 
> This is depending on the order of which the _initialize
> routines are called, hence the gdb_assert.  I just cleaned
> up the only left over target that was doing a similar hack
> (sol-threads.c) a couple of months ago, to not do so.
> 
> Again, it's hard to come up with a better alternative
> without knowing what you're doing in those overrides.  Maybe
> what you need is a thread_stratum target sitting on top of
> nto-procfs.c or corelow.c.  Maybe we need new gdbarch
> callbacks.
> 

Ok, I attached my nto-diff (work-in-progress) that compile 
with current gdb HEAD sources (with some tweaks in configure 
scripts). You will see all my hacks there.

I am inclined to think that core_ops is the right way to go; 
at which point should I do a "push_target" in that case?




-- 
Aleksandar Ristovski
QNX Software Systems