From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15324 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2003 22:25:23 -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 15317 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2003 22:25:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Dec 2003 22:25:23 -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 hBCMPM221677 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:25:22 -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 hBCMPL230894; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:25:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-15.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.15]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBCMPK6m025761; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:25:20 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hBCMPEU22596; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 15:25:14 -0700 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:25:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031212222514.ZM22595@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: "J. Johnston" "Re: RFA: ia64 portion of libunwind patch" (Dec 10, 3:58pm) 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> <1031108001337.ZM18506@localhost.localdomain> <3FAC388A.10207@redhat.com> <16300.39298.323956.667764@napali.hpl.hp.com> <3FAD7F01.2050407@gnu.org> <16304.3297.662733.250523@napali.hpl.hp.com> <3FB0149C.1060908@redhat.com> <16323.61371.6654.950171@napali.hpl.hp.com> <16334.39106.297492.636397@napali.hpl.hp.com> <3FCFC9FD.4040106@redhat.com> <16335.54210.785826.438051@napali.hpl.hp.com> <3FD788FD.6020305@redhat.com> To: "J. Johnston" , davidm@hpl.hp.com Subject: Re: RFA: ia64 portion of libunwind patch Cc: Andrew Cagney , Kevin Buettner , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00342.txt.bz2 On Dec 10, 3:58pm, J. Johnston wrote: > David Mosberger wrote: > >>>>>>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:57:49 -0500, "J. Johnston" said: > > > > > > Jeff> A questions regarding the .so name issue you mentioned. We > > Jeff> are already grabbing the function names from UNW_OBJ macro > > Jeff> from the generic libunwind.h header. I think we could > > Jeff> generate the libunwind.so name similarly using the UNW_TARGET. > > Jeff> Any problems with this strategy? (any scenarios where this > > Jeff> value doesn't match the extension used by the libunwind > > Jeff> library?) > > > > No, that sounds fine to me. The part that I don't understand is that > > at the moment it seems that only one libunwind-$TARGET.so can be > > loaded. With a multi-target-capable gdb, that would obviously not be > > sufficient, as you'd want to load, say, libunwind-ia64.so.1 for ia64 > > and libunwind-x86.so.1 for x86. But it's mostly a theoretical issue > > at this point. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --david > > > > I have created the patch to use UNW_TARGET. > > Yes, the current implementation doesn't support multiple gdb > targets, but it is set up to make such a task relatively > straightforward in the future (i.e. simply put the function handles > off of the target vector and pass in the target name). > > Kevin, ok to commit? Sure. Kevin