This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC/RFA] Target vectors for native Linux targets
- From: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- To: mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl (Mark Kettenis)
- Cc: uweigand at de dot ibm dot com, manjo at austin dot ibm dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:28:31 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] Target vectors for native Linux targets
Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Hmm, it would be preferable to have it the other way around, since
> that would make eliminating the nm-linux.h files, but I can see why
> you did it this way. In the end we might just define USE_LINUX_TARGET
> if GDB_NM_FILE isn't defined. So it's not really important. I've
> added some more comments on the patch inline.
I guess we could make a config/nm-new-linux.h or something -- that
would be a (temporary) new nm file, but would allow to remove the
per-platform Linux nm files as platforms are converted over ...
> > To avoid calling child_xfer_memory I had to switch to using xfer_partial
> > instead. This change also bubbled up to linux-thread-db.c. (But seeing
> > as xfer_memory is deprecated, that's probably a good idea anyway.)
>
> Indeed. When I did conversions in the past the
> depreceated_xfer_memory always came back to haunt me, so we have to be
> a bit careful. Did you test your patch on another Linux target that
> wasn't converted yet?
I tested it on s390 *without* the follow-up patch, and that went
fine as well ...
> > What do you think of this approach?
>
> I think this should be committed. However, since Daniel did some work
> in this area before, I'd like to give him the opportunity to comment.
> Can you keep this patch on the backburner until he's back?
Sure. Thanks for your comments!
> Daniels earlier attempt had linux_target accept a `struct target_ops
> *' as an argument to serve as an alternative for a plain
> inf_ptrace_target(). I thought that was necessary for i386 and sparc
> Linux targets, but I think I've convinced myself that it isn't.
Since you can always override the target functions afterwards,
I'm not sure why this would be necessary ...
Bye,
Ulrich
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
Linux on zSeries Development
Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com