From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11488 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2003 15:57:15 -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 11480 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2003 15:57:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Nov 2003 15:57:14 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.24 #1 (Debian)) id 1AJatF-00032B-Nr for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:57:13 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:57:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [wip] "info auxv" Message-ID: <20031111155713.GA11649@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3FB01C47.1020502@redhat.com> <20031110232139.GA20227@nevyn.them.org> <3FB104B3.4010803@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FB104B3.4010803@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00212.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 10:48:03AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >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, > > Ref: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-10/msg00265.html > > >the values in "elf/common.h" are not > >authoritive, and I don't even think they match Solaris? Should this be > >in common code? > > Note the "????" in that output: > 2000 ??? 0x9f4 > Adding some sort of table is a todo item. > > I'm mainly worried about the "auxv.h" interface. For instance, how to > provide a generic mechanism for fetching the entry-point address. > Should "auxv.h" "define an OS independant set of enums and then map that > onto the real numbers" (ala signals), or assume AT_ENTRY is constant > across platforms (it actually is), or export an > auxv_entry_point_address() and handle it all internally. I'd say, assume it's a constant across platforms until/unless we hit one where it isn't? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer