From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1125 invoked by alias); 15 May 2003 21:58:02 -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 1042 invoked from network); 15 May 2003 21:57:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (62.163.169.212) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 May 2003 21:57:59 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h4FLvpZN000396; Thu, 15 May 2003 23:57:51 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h4FLvpHD000491; Thu, 15 May 2003 23:57:51 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h4FLvpNj000488; Thu, 15 May 2003 23:57:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 21:58:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200305152157.h4FLvpNj000488@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> From: Mark Kettenis To: roland@redhat.com CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <200305130258.h4D2wvY23487@magilla.sf.frob.com> (message from Roland McGrath on Mon, 12 May 2003 19:58:57 -0700) Subject: Re: [branch patch] core files as symfiles References: <200305130258.h4D2wvY23487@magilla.sf.frob.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00259.txt.bz2 Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 19:58:57 -0700 From: Roland McGrath The following patch causes core files to be implicitly read as symbol files as well. Using this along with my previous dwarf-frame.c patch vs current kettenis_i386newframe-20030419-branch gdb, on Linux 2.5.69 on x86 the backtrace of a thread in a system call from a core dump Just Works. I've included the trivial symfile.c patch that was in with my dwarf-frame.c patch again here too, since it's required for the corelow.c patch to work and these patches work (but cause nothing interesting to happen) independent of the dwarf-frame.c changes. The patch looks fine to me, although I'd like to see the opinion of another GDB developer who's more familiar with this part of the code. Since this code doesn't depend on any other changes in the i386newframe branch, perhaps this should go into mainline, and we can simply merge it into the branch from there. If you think so, please resubmit this without the reference to "branch" in the subject. Mark