From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25758 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2008 19:12:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 25745 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Mar 2008 19:12:02 -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; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:11:42 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A52983A0; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 19:11:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D365098149; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 19:11:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JXhym-00009f-56; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:11:40 -0500 Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:12:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] "continue" after "attach" fails on sparc64-solaris Message-ID: <20080307191140.GA368@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080201181237.GA20356@adacore.com> <20080307184121.GB3892@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080307184121.GB3892@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) 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: 2008-03/txt/msg00054.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 10:41:21AM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > This one is relatively straightforward, I think. I could commit it > in a week or so unless there are objections, but I am afraid that > it might be priviledge abuse (and I welcome feedback). Since it's > been out for review for a while, I'll wait another week before > checking it in. But do let me know if I'm abusing my priviledges. If anything I think you're underabusing them - we asked you to be a global maintainer because we trusted your judgement :-) > > I fixed the problem by implementing a suggestion to use the AT_BASE > > attributed, but as it turns out, this was only good enough for sparc32. > > As far as I can tell, the auxilliary data obtained when running a 64bit > > app looks screwed. So we still have the same problem on sparc64. This was what threw me off an immediate reply. I doubt the kernel's got a bug like this, since Solaris tools use the auxv data. So we must have an error when reading it. Maybe the format is different than we expect (32-bit vs 64-bit fields)? Otherwise the patch looks fine. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery