From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8530 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2003 00:22:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 8482 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2003 00:22:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jun 2003 00:22:45 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5I0MjH19637 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:22:45 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5I0MjI28063 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:22:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-21.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.21]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5I0Mio06097; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:22:44 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5I0Md200706; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:22:39 -0700 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:22:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1030618002238.ZM705@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Jim Blandy "Re: [ppc64-linux]: correctly find a BFD's code entry point address" (Jun 13, 7:04pm) References: <1030613054523.ZM346@localhost.localdomain> To: Jim Blandy Subject: Re: [ppc64-linux]: correctly find a BFD's code entry point address Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00587.txt.bz2 On Jun 13, 7:04pm, Jim Blandy wrote: > Thanks! I redid the patch as you suggest, and it's much smaller and > simpler. How's this: > > 2003-06-12 Jim Blandy > > * ppc-linux-tdep.c (ppc64_linux_bfd_entry_point): New function. > (ppc_linux_init_abi): Register it as our bfd_entry_point method. Yeah, this version is much nicer. Thanks for redoing it! If I'm not mistaken, there's a dependency on some gdbarch stuff, right? Once that's resolved, this can go in. Kevin