This is the mail archive of the frysk@sourceware.org mailing list for the frysk project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 09:12 -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > This picks up an earlier refactoring, where the specific instances of a > Host et.al. were moved to sub-packages. As I noted back then, the > sub-package names, in hindsite, weren't the best choice - reflecting > implementation (using ptrace) rather than properties (live or dead). > > The intent is to rename frysk.proc.{ptrace,corefile} -> > frysk.proc.{live,dead} Could you explain a bit more what kind of public interface (differences) you see between these two packages? How would it compare with the public frysk.proc interface for Tasks? My feeling is that it isn't a good idea to just rename the implementation packages ptrace, corefile to these properties you find more appealing. You should layer the properties on top of the implementation techniques. There might be more implementations later like utrace and/or some userspace /proc implementation layered on top of utrace that Chris is working on. But we will still use ptrace for systems that don't support utrace (yet). And with some magic we can probably give the core file implementation some of the live properties by emulating memory, register access and instruction stepping. So multiple implementations might map to different instances of these properties. Cheers, Mark
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |