From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4566 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2003 04:33:44 -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 4558 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2003 04:33:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Oct 2003 04:33:43 -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 h9F4XgM04575 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:33:42 -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 h9F4Xgr28772; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:33:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-39.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.39]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9F4XewC024697; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:33:41 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h9F4XZs14263; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:33:35 -0700 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:33:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031015043334.ZM14262@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Roland McGrath "Re: unwind support for Linux 2.6 vsyscall DSO" (Oct 10, 6:47pm) References: <200310110147.h9B1lN0L016885@magilla.sf.frob.com> To: Roland McGrath , Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: unwind support for Linux 2.6 vsyscall DSO Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00481.txt.bz2 On Oct 10, 6:47pm, Roland McGrath wrote: > > SOLIB_ADD will only be called when the dynamic linker's "hey, I've > > just (un)loaded something new" breakpoint has been hit. (More > > precisely, this is the breakpoint placed at r_brk in the r_debug > > struct.) This occurs quite early in the execution of the program, but > > it might not be early enough. Also, as Daniel alludes, it won't > > happen at all for static binaries. > > Ok, then that is really not sufficient. I apparently got a mistaken > impression of how early it gets called from the previous discussion. The > more I think about it, the more a single new hook that is clearly "inferior > address space we haven't seen before" (i.e. exec/attach but not fork) looks > like the clean and sensible thing. All the existing hooks have semantics > that are either not quite clear or are clearly different from that. Sounds right to me... Kevin