From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16726 invoked by alias); 15 May 2008 17:03:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 16678 invoked by uid 22791); 15 May 2008 17:03:01 -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, 15 May 2008 17:02:40 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3A2983D6; Thu, 15 May 2008 17:02:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09AC59830E; Thu, 15 May 2008 17:02:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Jwgqj-0001xz-1J; Thu, 15 May 2008 13:02:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 18:44:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Overlay support broken (Re: [patch] [2/2] Discontiguous PSYMTABs (psymtabs->symtabs by addrmap)) Message-ID: <20080515170237.GB6488@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20080515101100.GA3624@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <200805151638.m4FGcmvr026237@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200805151638.m4FGcmvr026237@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-05/txt/msg00471.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 06:38:48PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > > For now, I'm using the patch below that simply falls back to the non-addrmap > > > case when debugging overlays and the addrmap returned the wrong section. > > > > I started coding a similiar patch as IMO the overlayed sections have no use for > > addrmap as they are not discontiguous, thanks for fixing it up this way. > > Hmm, OK. However, even with overlay debugging, there might be some other > discontiguous sections, so I don't really like the > if (overlay_debugging ...) > aspect of my patch. But without that condition, one of your new test cases > would fail again. Yes, I don't like that part either. I wonder if the memory usage would be too bad if we kept an addrmap for each section and one combined one for the non-overlay case? I don't know what overlay debug info looks like. Can we detect overlays in any practical way when reading in symbols? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery