This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch/rfc] to_read/write_partial -> to_xfer_partial
On Oct 27, 7:02pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > There's a tradeoff. You'll notice that I started out with separate
> >> asthetically pleasing read/write methods, but eventually decided the
> >> cost was too high.
> >>
> >> - the existing targets implement a memory centric "xfer". Its going to
> >> be easier [for me] to convert that code to this new xfer variant.
> >>
> >> - both the read and write paths use identical buffer overflow logic, and
> >> its that logic which contains the nasty edge cases and consequent bugs.
> >
> >
> > Is there any reason you can't keep the methods separate, but use a
> > common underlying "xfer" implementation? (Which, I think, is how
> > it's presently done.) In the past, when trying to figure out how an
> > xfer implementation worked, I recall looking at how the read/write
> > stubs called the xfer function.
>
> Sorry, I'm lost.
>
> How is which presently done? The patch retains the existing target
> read/write partial interfaces but uses an underlying to_xfer_partial
> vector method. This is how the existing to_xfer_memory is implemented.
My recollection of how the code was structured was faulty. I withdraw
my objections.
Kevin