This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add fbsd_nat_add_target.
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>, jhb at freebsd dot org
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 22:48:47 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add fbsd_nat_add_target.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <4032488 dot W8nPzteMFC at ralph dot baldwin dot cx> <2013405 dot YhOVhnvfYq at ralph dot baldwin dot cx> <201504271954 dot t3RJsOpO013326 at glazunov dot sibelius dot xs4all dot nl> <4869684 dot VuRe0HgzJ9 at ralph dot baldwin dot cx> <201504272050 dot t3RKoCSV018211 at glazunov dot sibelius dot xs4all dot nl>
On 04/27/2015 09:50 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
>> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:17:52 -0400
>> FWIW, obsd-nat.c (which I have looked at a bit), also uses a wrapper
>> around add_target rather than creating a generic OpenBSD native target.
>> To change the FreeBSD native targets I think would be an invasive change
>> since they use platform-specific native targets that are pan-BSD as their
>> initial target (e.g. amd64bsd_target) and customize from there. To make
>> fbsd_nat_target work I would need to rework things like amd64bsd_target
>> to modify an existing target instead of returning a new one I think (which
>> would also mean changing all the other BSD native targets).
>
> Which is why I'm perfectly happy with your current 1/3 diff ;).
I'm happy with it too. I was just curious.
Sounds like we'll need to revisit this if/when we make target_ops a
proper class hierarchy, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
> As far as I'm concerned you're the expert here and to me the series
> looks reasonable as posted.
Agreed.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves