From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2630 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2003 23:21:41 -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 2621 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2003 23:21:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Nov 2003 23:21:40 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.24 #1 (Debian)) id 1AJLLn-0005If-WB for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:21:39 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:21:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [wip] "info auxv" Message-ID: <20031110232139.GA20227@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3FB01C47.1020502@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FB01C47.1020502@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00206.txt.bz2 On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 06:16:23PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > This work-in-progress is more questions than answers. > > - Common code in "procfs.c" (tested) and "inftarg.c" > It makes me wonder if the native inferior code should be re-arranged > (has this come up before?). > > - The new files "auxv.[hc]" for parsing the file. > Perhaphs it belongs in "procfs.c" but that gets me back to the first > question - could the native inferior code be better structured? > + switch (auxv.type) > + { > + case AT_NULL: > + name = "End of vector"; > + break; Just a comment - as Roland said, the values in "elf/common.h" are not authoritive, and I don't even think they match Solaris? Should this be in common code? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer