This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB 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 Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 09:39:14PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:35:29 -0500 From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
> I'm not quite sure whether changing the gdbarch default is a good > idea, but replacing lin_lwp_prepare_to_proceed with > generic_prepare_to_proceed has been the intention all along.
Well, let me describe the problem I'm trying to solve; I'd like your opinion on how to approach it. When using gdbserver, we need to have generic_prepare_to_proceed. Not the lin_lwp version, and not the "default" one from arch-utils. The former won't work and the latter doesn't do enough. So cross debuggers need to pick this up.
OK, but generic_prepare_to_proceed() is perfectly usable on a native GNU/Linux GDB too, isn't it?
Yes, exactly.
Note that this is a property of the target. Not of the architecture. I'm not sure PREPARE_TO_PROCEED belongs in gdbarch at all. It's only
defined by Mach3, HP/UX, and Linux; it's undefined for x86-64-linux
(why???). I could set it in all the Linux gdbarch init functions that
I care about, but that doesn't seem like much of a solution.
It seems to be a property of the OS to me. In its current incarnation, gdbarch does includes details of both the architecture (ISA) and the OS (OS/ABI). So gdbarch seems to be the correct place for PREPARE_TO_PROCEED to me. So yes, I think you should add it to all relevant Linux gdbarch init functions.
I can do that; I'll put a patch together.
But I must admit that I don't really agree. It seems to be a property
of the threads implementation for the target instead. Consider this
case: if someone wanted to write a remote protocol stub for HP/UX. They wouldn't want the HP/UX version of PREPARE_TO_PROCEED naturally,
since that's native-only. They'd want most likely
generic_prepare_to_proceed. The default function isn't useful; it
doesn't support switching threads correctly.
(Incidentally, from reading the HP/UX implementation, I believe that using generic_prepare_to_proceed would work there too. It wouldn't work for the Mach 3.0 implementation as-is but I think it could be made to work. I'm not volunteering; are either hppa*-*-osf* or mips*-*-mach3* still living? Perhaps we should deprecate them next release.)
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |