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]

Re: [PATCH 2/6] Share parts of gdb/terminal.h with gdbserver


On Tuesday, January 03 2017, Luis Machado wrote:

>>>> +void
>>>> +new_tty (void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +  /* To be implemented.  */
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +/* See common/common-terminal.h.  */
>>>> +
>>>> +void
>>>> +new_tty_prefork (const char *ttyname)
>>>> +{
>>>> +  /* To be implemented.  */
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +/* See common/common-terminal.h.  */
>>>> +
>>>> +void
>>>> +new_tty_postfork (void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +  /* To be implemented.  */
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Are these going to be implemented at some point or is this something
>>> that may not be addressed until much later on?
>>
>> They're not exactly on my radar, but they're a part of the local/remote
>> feature parity, so they will be tackled soon, I'd figure.
>>
>>> It wouldn't be great to have a number of these lying around with no
>>> clear plan to have them addressed.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>> Are these counterparts of what gdb always has? Does it make sense to
>>> unify those functions instead of adding placeholders for a potentially
>>> different implementation?
>>
>> I'll try to give these a try and implementing them.  My only concern is
>> that I don't want these to explode into a giant new task to implement
>> inferior I/O on gdbserver, but it may be possible to just touch the
>> necessary bits and make it simple.
>>
>
> The rule is that the patch sender automatically volunteers for
> additional bits of work. :-P

"Additional bits" it totally fine!  The problem is "additional
gigabytes" ;-).

> Honestly, if it gets too complicated, then it should be fine to have
> the placeholders. But then it would be nice to add some more
> interesting comments on how these ought to be implemented in the
> future, along with bits on how these should be synched with what gdb
> already supports.
>
> Just an idea.

Sure, it's a great idea indeed.  Thanks for bringing this up; I'll work
on this and will come back when I have more news.

Thanks

-- 
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF  31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]