From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2041 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2003 01:47:25 -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 2034 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2003 01:47:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gateway.sf.frob.com) (64.81.54.130) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Oct 2003 01:47:24 -0000 Received: from magilla.sf.frob.com (magilla.sf.frob.com [198.49.250.228]) by gateway.sf.frob.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 971F8357B; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:47:23 -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 h9B1lNN2016889; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:47:23 -0700 Received: (from roland@localhost) by magilla.sf.frob.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h9B1lN0L016885; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:47:23 -0700 Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 01:47:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200310110147.h9B1lN0L016885@magilla.sf.frob.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: unwind support for Linux 2.6 vsyscall DSO In-Reply-To: Kevin Buettner's message of Thursday, 9 October 2003 16:03:58 -0700 <1031009230358.ZM14983@localhost.localdomain> Emacs: well, why *shouldn't* you pay property taxes on your editor? X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00390.txt.bz2 > SOLIB_ADD will only be called when the dynamic linker's "hey, I've > just (un)loaded something new" breakpoint has been hit. (More > precisely, this is the breakpoint placed at r_brk in the r_debug > struct.) This occurs quite early in the execution of the program, but > it might not be early enough. Also, as Daniel alludes, it won't > happen at all for static binaries. Ok, then that is really not sufficient. I apparently got a mistaken impression of how early it gets called from the previous discussion. The more I think about it, the more a single new hook that is clearly "inferior address space we haven't seen before" (i.e. exec/attach but not fork) looks like the clean and sensible thing. All the existing hooks have semantics that are either not quite clear or are clearly different from that.