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] |
* It's a bit of a hassle to get at the right architecture from within a *-nat.c module.
* There are cases where there are several implied architectures to choose from. * What's the implied architecture of an architecture-independent remote protocol? I'd like to make these register sets work for remote protocols too, without havong to associate some sort og "generic" gdbarch with it.
> Well, you can always pass gdbarch as the description. The point is > that the current implementation makes it possible to pass in something > that isn't related to a gdbarch at all. I also think it doesn't > necessarily make sense to copy the i386 implementation. For SPARC I'm > already thinking about a somewhat different implementation.
Will anyone every actually do this, or have we ended up with too much generality?
There might be too much generality, but that's certainly better than too little generality. I've defenitely got the feeling that gdbarch gives us too little generality.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |