From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20427 invoked by alias); 27 Sep 2013 14:09:53 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 20415 invoked by uid 89); 27 Sep 2013 14:09:52 -0000 Received: from mga02.intel.com (HELO mga02.intel.com) (134.134.136.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:09:52 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE,SPAM_SUBJECT autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mga02.intel.com Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2013 07:09:40 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 Received: from irvmail001.ir.intel.com ([163.33.26.43]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2013 07:09:39 -0700 Received: from ulvlx001.iul.intel.com (ulvlx001.iul.intel.com [172.28.207.17]) by irvmail001.ir.intel.com (8.14.3/8.13.6/MailSET/Hub) with ESMTP id r8RE9cJO014734; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:09:38 +0100 Received: from ulvlx001.iul.intel.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ulvlx001.iul.intel.com with ESMTP id r8RE9cV4028355; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:09:38 +0200 Received: (from nblanc@localhost) by ulvlx001.iul.intel.com with œ id r8RE9bH8028351; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:09:37 +0200 From: Nicolas Blanc To: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, nicolas.blanc@intel.com Subject: [PATCH] Function is_elf_target. Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:09:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1380290903-28046-1-git-send-email-nicolas.blanc@intel.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00956.txt.bz2 2013-27-09 Nicolas Blanc gdb/testsuite * lib/gdb.exp (is_elf_target): New function. Signed-off-by: Nicolas Blanc --- Hi Mark, I am sending this patch in response to . Some reviewers prefer a white list whereas others prefer a black list. So it looks like the right approach is to compile a file and check if it is ELF. Please let me know if this change would be acceptable to you. Thank you, Nicolas gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp index 5e3331a..df83634 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp +++ b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp @@ -1796,6 +1796,45 @@ proc supports_reverse {} { return 0 } +# Return 1 if target is ELF. +gdb_caching_proc is_elf_target { + set me "is_elf_target" + + set src [standard_temp_file is_elf_target[pid].c] + set obj [standard_temp_file is_elf_target[pid].o] + + set fp_src [open $src "w"] + puts $fp_src "int dummy () {return 0;}" + close $fp_src + + verbose "$me: compiling testfile $src" 2 + set lines [gdb_compile $src $obj object {quiet}] + + file delete $src + + if ![string match "" $lines] then { + verbose "$me: testfile compilation failed, returning 0" 2 + return 0 + } + + set fp_obj [open $obj "r"] + fconfigure $fp_obj -translation binary + set data [read $fp_obj] + close $fp_obj + + file delete $obj + + set ELFMAG "\u007FELF" + + if {[string compare -length 4 $data $ELFMAG] != 0} { + verbose "$me: returning 0" 2 + return 0 + } + + verbose "$me: returning 1" 2 + return 1 +} + # Return 1 if target is ILP32. # This cannot be decided simply from looking at the target string, # as it might depend on externally passed compiler options like -m64. -- 1.7.6.5