From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-64159-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 22543 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2009 18:41:35 -0000
Received: (qmail 22533 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jun 2009 18:41:34 -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 18:41:28 +0000
Received: (qmail 3859 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2009 18:41:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 3 Jun 2009 18:41:26 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: ptid from core section
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:41:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
Cc: Aleksandar Ristovski <aristovski@qnx.com>
References: <4A23F9FF.8040708@qnx.com> <200906031541.49256.pedro@codesourcery.com> <h06a59$v55$1@ger.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <h06a59$v55$1@ger.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200906031941.55106.pedro@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00046.txt.bz2

On Wednesday 03 June 2009 17:59:21, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote:

> > 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.
> >=20
> oops... and you couldn't guess???  :-D

The rumours that I'm clairvoyant are really just rumours.  :-)


> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0* sol2-tdep.h (sol2_ptid_from_core_section,
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0sol2_core_section_name_from_ptid): New declaratio=
ns.

Please line wrap these cases like:

         * sol2-tdep.h (sol2_ptid_from_core_section)
         (sol2_core_section_name_from_ptid): New declarations.

Thanks.  Don't forget to add something like this to the changelog:

	* gdbarch.h, gdbarch.c: Regenerate.


This is mostly OK as far as I'm concerned.  One question though:=20

>         (ptid_from_core_section, core_section_name_from_ptid): New=20
> functions.

Is there still a reason the former takes bfd and bfd section pointers,
instead of being a mirror of the latter (say, ptid_from_core_section_name)?

--=20
Pedro Alves