This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Improve "start" command for Ada
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:05:43 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Improve "start" command for Ada
- References: <20041021034759.GP21300@gnat.com> <01c4b72e$Blat.v2.2.2$b14feb80@zahav.net.il> <20041021210951.GZ21300@gnat.com> <20041101194703.GH27334@gnat.com> <16810.33941.938548.637890@localhost.redhat.com> <20041201030309.GE1204@adacore.com>
Hello Elena,
There is one part of the patch that hasn't been approved yet. I tried
to explain a bit the history of the code you were concerned with, and
I was wondering what your thoughts were. Could you have a look? (way
at the bottom of the message - I kept the rest to keep the entire
context together).
Thanks,
--
Joel
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 09:08:21PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> > Joel Brobecker writes:
> > > Ping? (doco already approved by Eli)
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 02:09:51PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > > > 2004-10-20 Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com>
> > > >
> > > > * doc/observer.texi (executable_changed): New observer.
> > > > * symtab.c: Include "observer.h".
> > > > (find_main_name): New function.
> > > > (main_name): If name_of_main is unset, then compute it
> > > > using find_main_name.
> > > > (symtab_observer_executable_changed): New function.
> > > > (_initialize_symtab): Attach executable_changed observer.
> > > > * exec.c: Include "observer.h".
> > > > (exec_file_attach): Emit executable_changed notification.
> > > > * symfile.c: Include "observer.h".
> > > > (reread_symbols): Send an executable_changed if appropriate.
> > > > * Makefile.in (exec.o): Add dependency on observer.h.
> > > > (symfile.o): Likewise.
> > > > (symtab.o): Likewise.
> > > >
> > > > Tested on x86-linux. Still fixes 1 FAIL in gdb.ada/null_record.exp.
> > > >
> >
> > We need a testcase where the name of the executable is changed, and
> > this code is exercised. Otherwise ok, except for this:
>
> OK, I will add something along the line of reread.exp.
>
> > > > +/* Deduce the name of the main procedure, and set NAME_OF_MAIN
> > > > + accordingly. */
> > > > +
> > > > +static void
> > > > +find_main_name (void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + char *new_main_name;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Try to see if the main procedure is in Ada. */
> > > > + new_main_name = ada_main_name ();
> > > > + if (new_main_name != NULL)
> > > > + {
> > > > + set_main_name (new_main_name);
> > > > + return;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + /* The languages above didn't identify the name of the main procedure.
> > > > + Fallback to "main". */
> > > > + set_main_name ("main");
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > char *
> > > > main_name (void)
> > > > {
> > > > - if (name_of_main != NULL)
> > > > - return name_of_main;
> > > > - else
> > > > - return "main";
> > > > + if (name_of_main == NULL)
> > > > + find_main_name ();
> > > > +
> > > > + return name_of_main;
> > > > }
> > > >
> >
> > Can this find_main_name become an element in the language vector? I
> > really don't want to have a special language cases in the symtab file.
>
> This has actually been discussed already. There were several messages
> exchanged between Daniel and myself, but here are some important ones:
>
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-05/msg00607.html
> (one potential confusion if we use the *current* language vector
> to determine the name of main. This is also where the suggestion
> of calling the Ada routine directly was suggested.
>
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-05/msg00612.html
> (we agree that it's ok to call ada_main_name directly)
>
> In short, the answer to the discussion was that this was probably the
> best approach for now. The reason why it can't be put in the language
> vector is that this is not a property of the language (which can vary
> within the same program, depending on the frame), but a property of
> the executable. None of us like this approach much, but it was something
> that we felt sucked the least.
>
> If you want, what we can do is replace the hard-coded call to
> ada_main_name() by a loop of calls to a new language method,
> looping on all languages until we find a positive match. That
> way, the hard wiring to Ada disappears. But I don't think we're
> getting much from this extra slight complexity.
--
Joel