From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16957 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2007 20:03:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 16946 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Aug 2007 20:03:49 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:03:44 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1934E98122 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 20:03:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0217D98100 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 20:03:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IGgta-000258-0Q for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:03:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:03:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Support core files with 0 < p_filesz < p_memsz (build-id) Message-ID: <20070802200341.GC6563@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070801162202.GA11293@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070801162202.GA11293@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 06:22:02PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > The IMO more appropriate patch for BFD to flag the p_filesz..p_memsz part the > same way as the former (0==p_filesz)..(p_memsz) core part has been rejected: > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2007-08/msg00013.html > Referencing former BFD patch (where no GDB modifications were needed): > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2007-07/msg00520.html I'm going to follow up with Alan about this... I don't know what the right BFD behavior is, but I don't believe it can be the current one. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery