This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 2/6] Share parts of gdb/terminal.h with gdbserver
- From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>
- To: Luis Machado <lgustavo at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: GDB Patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, <palves at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 16:38:41 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] Share parts of gdb/terminal.h with gdbserver
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1482464361-4068-1-git-send-email-sergiodj@redhat.com> <1482464361-4068-3-git-send-email-sergiodj@redhat.com> <8074e0e3-a026-78d7-d42b-953fd5c76ba7@codesourcery.com> <87lgurq213.fsf@redhat.com> <2c08952e-2466-6b5e-5098-95fd64d4c445@codesourcery.com>
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/