From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-65698-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 29106 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2009 14:34:54 -0000
Received: (qmail 29086 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jul 2009 14:34:53 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 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; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:34:44 +0000
Received: (qmail 8465 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2009 14:34:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 28 Jul 2009 14:34:42 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Set bfd field in target_section
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:59:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
Cc: Aleksandar Ristovski <aristovski@qnx.com>,  gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
References: <h4n1ui$nt3$1@ger.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <h4n1ui$nt3$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: <200907281534.41605.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: 2009-07/txt/msg00678.txt.bz2
Message-ID: <20090728145900.c-C0XcGfND-YYl8B2etdzPzRXmBZs395QBBJSPrP63k@z>

On Tuesday 28 July 2009 15:28:33, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote:
> Hello,
>=20
> I believe this is related to Pedro's patch from 03-Jun-09. I=20
> didn't see where we set target_section.bfd field - maybe I=20
> am overlooking something, but in bfd-target, in function=20
> target_bfd_xclose we will call bfd_close=20
> (table->sections->bfd); bfd_close doesn't like NULL argument.
>=20
> Am I missing something, or is this (the patch) missing?

Doesn't add_to_section_table set the bfd in each new
target section?

>=20
> Patch attached.
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> --=20
> Aleksandar Ristovski
> QNX Software Systems
>=20
> ChangeLog:
>=20
> * exec.c (build_section_table): Setup section_table bfd field.
> exec_c-20090728.diff
>   Index: gdb/exec.c
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/exec.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.90
> diff -u -p -r1.90 exec.c
> --- gdb/exec.c=A0=A02 Jul 2009 17:21:06 -0000=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A01.90
> +++ gdb/exec.c=A0=A028 Jul 2009 14:21:09 -0000
> @@ -441,6 +441,7 @@ build_section_table (struct bfd *some_bf
> =A0 =A0bfd_map_over_sections (some_bfd, add_to_section_table, (char *) en=
d);
> =A0 =A0if (*end > *start + count)
> =A0 =A0 =A0internal_error (__FILE__, __LINE__, _("failed internal consist=
ency check"));
> + =A0(*start)->bfd =3D (*end)->bfd =3D some_bfd;
> =A0 =A0/* We could realloc the table, but it probably loses for most file=
s. =A0*/
> =A0 =A0return 0;
> =A0}



--=20
Pedro Alves