From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25456 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2010 22:06:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 25448 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Mar 2010 22:06:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 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, 08 Mar 2010 22:06:39 +0000 Received: (qmail 14159 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2010 22:06:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 8 Mar 2010 22:06:37 -0000 Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:06:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: Verify AT_ENTRY before using it Message-ID: <20100308220635.GC2629@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20100224224913.GA25437@caradoc.them.org> <20100225221620.GA7830@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100226211216.GC2630@caradoc.them.org> <20100301200428.GA14079@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100301200428.GA14079@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00339.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 09:04:28PM +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > The patch below combines (a)+(c)+(b) (in this order). It also implements > a warning on non-matching exec_bfd vs. target memory. (d) is still left as > applicable independent patch for approval. Thanks for working on this. I agree with all of it except the warnings. Since there's no other working way to accomplish (d) today, and I have a use case for that which won't go away, I don't think it's appropriate to warn. Note, if the program headers matched but the alignment was not page aligned, that would be a different case: that seems worth warning about. I don't know what that would mean. Is it a case you've encountered? Without the warnings, this is OK to check in. If you want the warnings, we should discuss it a little more. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery