From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28850 invoked by alias); 15 May 2003 23:29:18 -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 28758 invoked from network); 15 May 2003 23:29:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 May 2003 23:29:18 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19GSAS-0003aM-00; Thu, 15 May 2003 18:29:44 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19GS9x-0007OA-00; Thu, 15 May 2003 19:29:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 23:29:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: roland@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [branch patch] core files as symfiles Message-ID: <20030515232913.GA28339@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , roland@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200305130258.h4D2wvY23487@magilla.sf.frob.com> <200305152157.h4FLvpNj000488@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200305152157.h4FLvpNj000488@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00267.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 11:57:51PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > 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. I can't claim to be familiar with this code, but the patch also looks reasonable to me. > 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. I think this would be a good idea. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer