From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28656 invoked by alias); 4 Oct 2003 21:14:43 -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 28649 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2003 21:14:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Oct 2003 21:14:42 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1A5tje-0006M1-6c; Sat, 04 Oct 2003 17:14:42 -0400 Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 21:14:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Roland McGrath Cc: Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: unwind support for Linux 2.6 vsyscall DSO Message-ID: <20031004211441.GA24371@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Roland McGrath , Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200310042027.h94KR6If023360@magilla.sf.frob.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200310042027.h94KR6If023360@magilla.sf.frob.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00090.txt.bz2 On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 01:27:06PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > Should this SOLIB_ADD then just store whether it has checked yet and clear > > > that record in SOLIB_CLEAR? > > > > I think that's what it would take. Open to better ideas, I'm just > > doing the best I can. :) > > Ok. I don't see a problem with this if the sequence of when SOLIB_ADD and > SOLIB_CLEAR will be called is correct. That is, SOLIB_ADD after core load, > after attach, or after the break-on-exec (second one) from run, and > SOLIB_CLEAR some appropriate time for unloading symbols. It's important > that SOLIB_ADD not be called too early in the run case, i.e. before the > second exec so that the inferior's state is not yet as it will be. > Can I rely on that not happening? Yes, since this is when solibs are normally loaded anyway. An issue is whether it gets called early enough, i.e. before the dynamic linker breakpoint is hit, or at all for static applications. We'll have to see. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer