From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26460 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2014 22:00:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 26450 invoked by uid 89); 20 Jan 2014 22:00:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 22:00:28 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0KM0QYK002672 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:00:27 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-85.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.85]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0KM0BgV002361 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:00:23 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC 05/32] add target method delegation References: <1389640367-5571-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1389640367-5571-6-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <52D52E77.6040101@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 22:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <52D52E77.6040101@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:32:55 +0000") Message-ID: <87d2jmfh5g.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00797.txt.bz2 >> MUST UPDATE Pedro> Yes, must. :-) Hah, thanks for noticing that. That was just a note to myself that I needed to update the ChangeLog and/or description for that patch. I've fixed it on my branch. >> -record_full_can_async_p (struct target_ops *ops) [...] >> -record_full_is_async_p (struct target_ops *ops) Pedro> I think these were and still are necessary, due to how Pedro> find_default_target_can_async_p etc. is installed in the dummy target. Pedro> E.g., when debugging with the record-core target, without this, I Pedro> think we'll end up hitting the dummy target, because the core_ops Pedro> target delegates these methods. That means we'll end up asking e.g., Pedro> the GNU/Linux target whether it can async, while that isn't the Pedro> process_stratum target that is open. I finally sat down to think about this, and I agree. I will restore these. I probably won't have an updated patch series until Feb at this point. Pedro> This made me realize another issue with the Pedro> find_default_target_can_async_p (or really all find_default_...) Pedro> being installed in the dummy/default target. E.g., considering a Pedro> configuration that includes both remote-sim, and a native target Pedro> that can run. When connected to the sim, we'll end up calling Pedro> that method in the default run target which is wrong. I may end up having to clean up these methods a bit for multi-target anyhow. I mean, I know I have to do something, due to the previously mentioned "type-vs-instance" problem these methods have; but whether or not it would necessarily fix the above, I don't know. Tom