[rfc, ping] Remote "info proc" and core file generation

["Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>]

Hello,

given the problems with my latest attempt to access /proc remotely via
generic file access routines documented here:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-12/msg00782.html

I would like to go back to my earlier approach using TARGET_INFO_PROC:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-12/msg00007.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-12/msg00008.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-12/msg00009.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-12/msg00010.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-12/msg00011.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-12/msg00014.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-12/msg00015.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-12/msg00016.html

In the meantime, I've got approval for the doc and bfd parts, and
Joel has regression-tested the patches on a procfs target (Irix).

So the only thing that stops this patch series from going in as-is
is consensus that TARGET_INFO_PROC is the right abstraction level.

Given the experiments I did in the meantime (see above), I'd now
argue that this *is* the proper level of abstraction:

- TARGET_INFO_PROC allows the *contents* of Linux /proc files to
  be passed through unchanged, so we don't have to define our own
  formats (and keep updating them) -- the one drawback is that the
  contents are obviously Linux-specific, but that's OK as long as
  the target objects are only used in linux-tdep code.

- At the same time, *access* to those contents is abstracted.  This
  means we do *not* have to know exactly where on the target the
  /proc files are found: e.g. in the classic remote target, the GDB
  host side does not even know the PID of the inferior process on
  the target.  (Another possibility might be a Linux kernel remote
  target that operates via hardware debugging or in-kernel debugging
  and still provides access to Linux processes: such remote stubs
  could also implement TARGET_INFO_PROC, even if they may not
  provide general access to the file system.)

Pedro, you had been raising concerns about this initially.  Did you
have a chance to look at the discussion refered to at the top of
this mail?  Do you still feel that TARGET_INFO_PROC is inappropiate?

Thanks for your feedback on this!

Bye,
Ulrich

-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
  Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com