From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29888 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2009 18:35:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 29878 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Dec 2009 18:35:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:35:34 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DC0B2BAB28; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:35:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id pIHsw8hjmySh; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:35:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D6B2BAB22; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:35:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5BD51F5937; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:35:09 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:35:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Check for dladdr in gdbserver Message-ID: <20091221183509.GQ2788@adacore.com> References: <20091221181234.2CBBD84412@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091221181234.2CBBD84412@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-12/txt/msg00313.txt.bz2 Not enough experience with the gdbserver code, especially on Linux targets, so can't really review the patch itself, even if it looks OK to me. However: > NOTE: There's similar code in gdb/linux-thread-db.c but it isn't > compiled for android (android is a cross target) so I didn't change it. > I can add a similar patch there if required. IMO: I would leave it be until it because a bona fide issue (when someone tries to port GDB to a Linux system without a glibc). -- Joel