From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17194 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2010 16:10:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 17173 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Feb 2010 16:10:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:10:44 +0000 Received: (qmail 10719 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2010 16:10:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 22 Feb 2010 16:10:42 -0000 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:10:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: PATCH: Enable x86 XML target descriptions Message-ID: <20100222161040.GD30100@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "H.J. Lu" , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20100210200303.GA19632@lucon.org> <20100218054312.GA9022@lucon.org> <20100218153402.GA27929@lucon.org> <20100218230135.GA17916@intel.com> <201002221342.o1MDgSZA029705@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20100222144141.GA30100@caradoc.them.org> <6dc9ffc81002220734i15bd1279mb54cb0b64a37f3dc@mail.gmail.com> <20100222155243.GC30100@caradoc.them.org> <6dc9ffc81002220757v5e9b48bdnba56a260f0f3c0a8@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6dc9ffc81002220757v5e9b48bdnba56a260f0f3c0a8@mail.gmail.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: 2010-02/txt/msg00541.txt.bz2 On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 07:57:52AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 07:34:01AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> I just need to know if the inferior is 32bit or 64bit. Why shouldn't > >> target_gdbarch be used? At this point, target_gdbarch should have > >> the correct bfd cpu info. Is that correct? > > > > Not if, for instance, we did not find the executable. > > How do you debug if you can't find executable? I am not sure if > you can get that far. That's not the point. You can not rely on the gdbarch here. It breaks the entire abstraction to circularly read the architecture description from the architecture. Plus it will do the wrong thing if the user gives the wrong executable, and this is our chance to get it right. Why can't you figure this out with ptrace? Isn't there a bit in flags, or something like that? Or a way to get at the kernel's TIF_IA32 flag? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery