From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30954 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2003 02:40:13 -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 30947 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2003 02:40:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gateway.sf.frob.com) (64.81.54.130) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2003 02:40:12 -0000 Received: from magilla.sf.frob.com (magilla.sf.frob.com [198.49.250.228]) by gateway.sf.frob.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 975C8357B; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 19:40:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from magilla.sf.frob.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by magilla.sf.frob.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h972eBN2011943; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 19:40:11 -0700 Received: (from roland@localhost) by magilla.sf.frob.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h972eBoX011939; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 19:40:11 -0700 Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 02:40:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200310070240.h972eBoX011939@magilla.sf.frob.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: Elena Zannoni Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: unwind support for Linux 2.6 vsyscall DSO In-Reply-To: Elena Zannoni's message of Monday, 6 October 2003 22:41:30 -0400 <16258.10202.899788.703135@localhost.redhat.com> X-Windows: the problem for your problem. X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00154.txt.bz2 > It is useful if you want to apply a specific function to the entries > of the auxv vectors in a generic way while iterating. There are plenty > of other examples in gdb and bfd where this interface is used, albeit > it may not be the most efficient. I think you could still write an > iterator because it will be needed. I understand. I would prefer a block-reading interface in the target vector (e.g. something similar to target_read_aux_vector as in the patch I posted) and a utility function that is an iterator applied to the block. Do you see a problem with that? Or do you think that the conversion from target width and byte order to host format and back is desireable in some way? I don't feel strongly about this.