This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] New option "trust-readonly-sections"
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 11:51:30AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 09:22:09AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >>On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >>> I'd rather see this default to on.
> >>That would be an incompatible change. I think we should avoid such
> >>changes, unless we have a very good reason.
> >Stan's reply was convincing. i guess I've been spoiled by
> >protected-memory situations.
> >I'd personally like to object to your objection though, Eli.
> >Performance can be a very good reason. If it wasn't for the other
> >drawbacks, I'd consider the argument.
er... "drawbacks (that Stan pointed out to me), I'd argue with you
> >Perhaps I'm in the minority there, though.
> (Would you go near someone wearing an asbestos suit? :-)
> It is really important that GDB doesn't lie. If the tweek is safe then
> certainly enable it. This tweek _isn't_ safe in embedded targets.
> BTW, there are other things that can also be done - for instance
> checking that the target text area hasn't changed. There is a qCRC
> packet (but from memory it was argued that wasn't strong enough).
Perhaps a qMD5 packet? :)
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer