From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2097 invoked by alias); 17 May 2002 13:58:52 -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 2059 invoked from network); 17 May 2002 13:58:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO amsfep15-int.chello.nl) (213.46.243.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 May 2002 13:58:50 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by amsfep15-int.chello.nl (InterMail vM.5.01.03.06 201-253-122-118-106-20010523) with SMTP id <20020517135849.ZGDH1268.amsfep15-int.chello.nl@[127.0.0.1]>; Fri, 17 May 2002 15:58:49 +0200 From: To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com CC: msnyder@redhat.com,drow@mvista.com,ac131313@cygnus.com,thorpej@wasabisystems.com Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFA] Don't gdbarch_init for core files Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 06:58:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020517135849.ZGDH1268.amsfep15-int.chello.nl@[127.0.0.1]> X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00713.txt.bz2 Michael Snyder wrote: > > > I guess I really do need to know why the change was added in the first > > > place (the message with the original patch doesn't describe the problem > > > the patch is trying to solve). > > > Just a guess - debugging a core file without an original binary? > > Bingo! ;-) Ah, but in that case, why not call set_gdbarch_from_file() only when exec_bfd is NULL? As in: if (!exec_bfd) set_gdbarch_from_file (core_bfd); I tested this, and it seems to solve the problems for me when testing my pending i386 multi-arch patches on Linux. Mark