From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20836 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2003 17:18:09 -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 20829 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2003 17:18:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO redhat.com) (66.30.22.225) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2003 17:18:07 -0000 Received: by redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 201) id 639111C10F; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 12:18:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 17:18:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: coffread.c extension for DLLs without debugging symbols Message-ID: <20030105171826.GE16706@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20030104044408.GA7364@redhat.com> <20030104205130.GA9784@redhat.com> <86k7hju04j.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86k7hju04j.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00186.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 03:44:44PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: >Christopher Faylor writes: > >>>>2) I wonder if this code should be ifdef'ed somehow for Windows since >>>>it will add extra code for no gain on every COFF platform. Of course, >>>>how many of those are there out there? Maybe this isn't a huge issue >>>>after all. >>> >>>I wondered about that myself. However, wouldn't that suggest putting >>>the bulk of the code somewhere like win32-nat.c? >> >> That would be fine with me (especially since I can approve that part of >> gdb). So, you'd need some kind of hooks in coffread.c to handle this. >> I guess we should wait for the coffread maintainer to offer an opinion >> before you go to this effort, though. > >Well, I assume this code would be usefull when cross-debugging too. >If so, a *-nat.c file would be the wrong place to add it. You could >create a win32-tdep.c file though. Cross debugging to a windows box? Does anyone actually do that? I know it is theoretically possible with, *cough* rda *cough* but I wasn't aware of anyone actually doing this. Regardless, win32-tdep.c would be a more logically correct place to put it. cgf