From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30607 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2002 06:11:25 -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 30555 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2002 06:11:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pizda.ninka.net) (216.101.162.242) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2002 06:11:23 -0000 Received: from localhost (IDENT:davem@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pizda.ninka.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA26257; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:02:01 -0700 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:11:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20020423.230201.18283782.davem@redhat.com> To: kevinb@redhat.com Cc: msnyder@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Kill SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <1020423191000.ZM9800@localhost.localdomain> References: <3CC59E0A.D9572914@redhat.com> <1020423191000.ZM9800@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00914.txt.bz2 From: Kevin Buettner Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:10:00 -0700 I'm beginning to remember more about this now. Contrary to my previous statements in this thread, I don't think we really lose the ability to have symbols at address 0. We can still have them, but it's more work to figure out that they're at zero because the minimal symbols will be consulted to make the determination. Ok. If this were not the case, we could conditionalize the code with a gdbarch boolean value that would make the code work properly in the presence of symbols at address zero. This all depends upon the final analysis of whether my suggested change does, or does not actually take away the capability to have symbols at address zero.