From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
To: Adam Fedor <fedor@doc.com>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: objc-lang.c portability (Was Re: [PATCH] Step over Objective-C dispatch function)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:53:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3E831E93.6010803@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0E3D4316-5FE3-11D7-8F82-000A277AC1A4@doc.com>
>
> On Thursday, March 20, 2003, at 02:08 PM, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> I've looked at what the underlying code is trying to do and, unfortunatly, the original objc-lang.c botched its portability(1), sigh! The file is currently native only so infrun.c can't directly refer to objc-lang.c, and hence, will need to go via a dispatch table. Going via a dispatch table wouldn't hurt anyway.
>
> (1) I noticed that the parameter extract methods assume host=target.
>
>
> I'm wondering what's not portable with objc-lang.c? With the remaining patches I have that require this, I was thinking it might be easier to just fix it now. The alternative appears to be adding a whole bunch of things to the language_defn structure. I admit I don't really understand the problem though.
Both getting objc-lang.c portable and extending the language vector are
things that will, one day, need to be done :-/ My guess is that it will
be quicker, and lower risk, to attack the language vector side of the
problem then to more slowly audit / fix the portability problems. This
will at least make it possible to enable objc for one or two key native
systems (e.g., i386 GNU/Linux).
Language vector additions are largly a case of changing this:
switch (current_language)
case C: do something C like;
case C++: do something C++ like;
...
into something like:
switch (current_language)
...
default:
current_language->do something language like;
which is very mechanical. There is plenty of prior art so approval is
pretty mechanical. Contrast it to the problem DanielJ pointed out (and
I hinted at):
> At the very least FETCH_ARGUMENT and CONVERT_FUNCPTR need to go into
> the architecture vector.
As they stand, these new methods won't go into the architecture vector.
Adding a new architecture method requires care and consideration, and
for the above, they will definitly need change.
Andrew
prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-03-27 15:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <3E7A2DCA.6050205@redhat.com>
2003-03-26 23:31 ` Adam Fedor
2003-03-26 23:35 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-27 15:53 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3E831E93.6010803@redhat.com \
--to=ac131313@redhat.com \
--cc=fedor@doc.com \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).