From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1959 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2009 14:41:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 1950 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jun 2009 14:41:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:41:10 +0000 Received: (qmail 17722 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2009 14:41:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 3 Jun 2009 14:41:08 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: ptid from core section Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:41:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: Aleksandar Ristovski References: <4A23F9FF.8040708@qnx.com> In-Reply-To: <4A23F9FF.8040708@qnx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200906031541.49256.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 On Monday 01 June 2009 16:55:43, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote: > In corelow.c we have several architecture specific lines for > determining ptid from core section. The same for getting > section name given inferior_ptid. > > This patch moves architecture specific parts into two new > functions: gdbarch_ptid_from_core_section and > gdbarch_core_section_name_from_ptid. > > They replace Pedro's gdbarch_core_reg_section_encodes_pid > since predicate is now redundant. > > I haven't added diffs for generated gdbarch.h/c, I would > like to get your thoughts about this first. As we talked about on IRC the other day, a better solution could require a redesign and normalization of how bfd exposes these thread/lwp/process ids. In principle, this change is fine with me, but it seems you forgot to attach the patch. :-) It would be nice if you included the nto bits in the patch, so we can see how this helps in your case, so that people can check upfront if this change is sufficient and good. -- Pedro Alves