From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15198 invoked by alias); 22 Dec 2008 15:35:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 15189 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Dec 2008 15:35:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw2.br.ibm.com (HELO igw2.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:34:42 +0000 Received: from d24relay01.br.ibm.com (unknown [9.8.31.16]) by igw2.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 296EE17F499 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:17:19 -0200 (BRDT) Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.46]) by d24relay01.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id mBMGYAjX3604610 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:34:10 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mBMFYaUt013206 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:34:36 -0200 Received: from [9.18.196.170] ([9.18.196.170]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBMFYYqj013169; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:34:35 -0200 Subject: Re: RFC: "info proc map" for corefiles From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio?= Durigan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FAnior?= To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: tromey@redhat.com, msnyder@vmware.com, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: References: <1229620702.6602.12.camel@miki> <200812181846.mBIIkTgK015985@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <1229626216.6602.15.camel@miki> <494AC2D3.9090705@vmware.com> <1229702034.6602.18.camel@miki> <1229703833.6602.28.camel@miki> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:35:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1229960072.27356.0.camel@miki> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-12/txt/msg00380.txt.bz2 Hi Eli, On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 21:36 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > No, "info proc" was designed to provide information recorded about a > process in the /proc filesystem. And a process that is dead does not > have any information about it in /proc. So, just to make sure I understood correctly, the patch is pretty much OK the way it is now, right? Tom, is this OK for you? Regards, -- Sérgio Durigan Júnior Linux on Power Toolchain - Software Engineer Linux Technology Center - LTC IBM Brazil