From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8553 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2003 00:13:46 -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 8544 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2003 00:13:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2003 00:13:46 -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 hA80DjM15012 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:13:45 -0500 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 hA80Di600905; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:13:44 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-2.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.2]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hA80DhH8023848; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:13:43 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hA80Dc718507; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 17:13:38 -0700 Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 00:13:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031108001337.ZM18506@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: RFA: ia64 portion of libunwind patch" (Nov 7, 7:07pm) References: <3FA2B71A.3080905@redhat.com> <3FA2CA1B.7000502@redhat.com> <16290.59502.799536.383397@napali.hpl.hp.com> <3FAC12D3.2070207@redhat.com> <16300.8192.489647.740612@napali.hpl.hp.com> <3FAC2454.2030009@redhat.com> <16300.9949.513264.716812@napali.hpl.hp.com> <3FAC2D03.8070607@redhat.com> <16300.12503.585501.180768@napali.hpl.hp.com> <3FAC33B3.2030403@redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , davidm@hpl.hp.com Subject: Re: RFA: ia64 portion of libunwind patch Cc: "J. Johnston" , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Kevin Buettner MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00147.txt.bz2 On Nov 7, 7:07pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>>>>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 18:38:43 -0500, Andrew Cagney said: > > > > > > Andrew> Draging that entire buffer (128k in the case of a program > > Andrew> like GDB) across the remote link is going to raise a few > > Andrew> eyebrows so a careful examination is justified. > > > > Oh. Can you remind me why gdb wouldn't be grabbing the unwind table > > from the ELF binary instead? You don't drag the debug info over the > > remote link either, right? > > Because it may not have the elf binary (at least not locally), and it > may not have debug info. People still expect GDB to do something > reasonable in those cases. I'm a little bit puzzled about why we wouldn't have the elf binary... But, assuming for the moment that we do, we'll definitely have the unwind info since it's mandated by the ABI. Kevin