Re: Leaving visible breakpoints in memory/core (Was: Breakpoint stepping)

[Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1508 bytes --]

Hi Phil,

On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 10:42 -0500, Phil Muldoon wrote:
> How is this going to be implemented in the task? Are you planning on 
> extending the abstract class Task with a getRawMemory()?

Yes. With an default implementation:

  /**                                                                           
   * Returns the memory as seen by frysk-core. That includes things like
   * inserted breakpoint instructions bytes which are filtered out by
   * <code>getMemory()</code> (which is what you normally want unless           
   * you are interested in frysk-core specifics).
   * <p>                               
   * Default implementation calls <code>getMemory()</code>, need to be
   * overriden by subclasses for which the raw memory view and the
   * logical memory view are different.
   */
  public ByteBuffer getRawMemory()
  {
    return getMemory();
  }

> If so, what does that mean for an implementing core file task? In the 
> corefile task (dead/LinuxTask.java) are getMemory() and getRawMemory() 
> returning the same ByteBuffer (CorefileByteBuffer) instance?

Yes, you get the support for free.

> Is this too live process specific and should be implemented some other way?

No, I think the generic implementation is the way to go so the user
doesn't have to worry about what specific implementation instance of
Task they are using. But please do comment when I post the patch and you
feel it should be done differently.

Cheers,

Mark

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]