Re: [RFA] Submit process record and replay third time, 3/9

[teawater <teawater at gmail dot com>]

Hi Pedro,

I found that remote.c use signal so I make a patch change sigaction to signal.

Do you think I can keep record.c in all place with this patch?

Thanks,
Hui

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 08:00, teawater <teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think my prev mail is not right.
>
> linux-record.c is not like record.c. It's for the tgt part and it
> doesn't have some os-special code.
>
> I think I will try to put it close to linux-nat.c.
>
> BTW I really want record.c to be a os-nospecial code. Do you have some
> idea with it. I think there just 2 sigaction in there, maybe I can
> make it not os-special.
>
>
> And for this record_beneath_to_xxx function pointer, do you agree with I said?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Hui
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 06:36, Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday 22 January 2009 22:34:25, Pedro Alves write:
>>> Here's what I propose you try as first step: remove all references to record.o
>>> from Makefile.in and configure.tgt.  Try building.  You'll get link errors.  Now,
>>> come up with interfaces between the core and record.c that would preserve all
>>> functionality if record.o isn't included in the link; but that will still link
>>> a gdb executable, if record.o isn't linked in.
>>
>> Sigh, I said "isn't" when I mean "is".  Let me try again,
>>
>> Here's what I propose you try as first step: remove all references to record.o
>> from Makefile.in and configure.tgt.  Try building.  You'll get link errors.  Now,
>> come up with interfaces between the core and record.c that would preserve all
>> functionality if record.o *is* included in the link; but that will still link
>> a gdb executable, if record.o *isn't* linked in.
>>
>> --
>> Pedro Alves
>>
>

Attachment: record-target-remove-sigaction.txt
Description: Text document