This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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 Thursday 04 June 2009 19:31:58, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote:Pedro Alves wrote:This is mostly OK as far as I'm concerned. One question though:Not a good reason. I just used what was available at the calling site. The attached patch makes arguments of the two new callbacks symmetrical (as much as was possible) as well as makes their names symmetrical.
(ptid_from_core_section, core_section_name_from_ptid): New functions.Is there still a reason the former takes bfd and bfd section pointers, instead of being a mirror of the latter (say, ptid_from_core_section_name)?
This time, gdbarch.[ch] included.
Hmm, sorry I missed something before...
AFAICS, core_gdbarch can end up being left NULL. Most code that accesses it in corelow.c handles it's NULL-ness, while your
change adds some unconditional accesses. The path of least resistence to fix this, is to move the callback defaults to corelow.c, make the new callbacks optional, and check for 'core_gdbarch && gdbarch_foo_p (core_gdbarch)' predicates before calling the optional callbacks.
( This does raise the question of which gdbarch is the best in these case: core_gdbarch; the executable's gdbarch; the more refined target_gdbarch, which in turn is refined from current_gdbarch through core_read_description. Yuk. )
-- Aleksandar Ristovski QNX Software Systems
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |