From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24566 invoked by alias); 4 Oct 2003 12:57:54 -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 24559 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2003 12:57:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Oct 2003 12:57:52 -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 h94Cvq117972 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 08:57:52 -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 h94Cvqc02294 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 08:57:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (devserv.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.1]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h94Cvmbe002014; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 08:57:48 -0400 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 205532CC88; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 08:19:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16254.47815.242618.646760@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 12:57:00 -0000 To: Roland McGrath Cc: Elena Zannoni , Jim Blandy , Mark Kettenis , Kevin Buettner , Daniel Jacobowitz , Andreas Schwab , Scott Bambrough , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] add-symbol-file-from-memory command In-Reply-To: <200310032300.h93N06sS021135@magilla.sf.frob.com> References: <16253.63603.893757.250193@localhost.redhat.com> <200310032300.h93N06sS021135@magilla.sf.frob.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00079.txt.bz2 Roland McGrath writes: > > The reason being that there was no agreement on the prerequisites, > > i.e. how to "do it right". There was no decision yet from the kernel > > people either. > > As I said in my later posting last night, this has now been resolved in > Linux 2.6 (the way we wanted it). Yes. I was more referring to the binutils mail thread starting at: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-05/msg00658.html which had a rework of your function but was never finished, after several comments. I.e. the interface/signature for that function is still in flux.