From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17482 invoked by alias); 21 Oct 2011 09:43:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 17473 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Oct 2011 09:43:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:43:11 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9L9h79A006523 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:43:07 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-16.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.16]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9L9h247031672 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:43:07 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9L9h0kF019948; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:43:00 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p9L9gx8S019943; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:42:59 +0200 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:05:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Paul Pluzhnikov Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] Implement qXfer:libraries for Linux/gdbserver #2 Message-ID: <20111021094258.GA23101@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20111003215530.GC20272@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201110062009.24796.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201110062009.24796.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2011-10/txt/msg00590.txt.bz2 On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:09:24 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > but this reuse of is a mistake. already supports the "segment" format and "section" format. SVR4 attributes are just another format of . Or do you agree there should rather have been and and it is kept this way for backward compatibility? > If we're not going to use > an solib-target.c at all, and the semantics of what goes over the > wire is not the same as /TARGET_OBJECT_LIBRARIES, then > let's come up with a completely independent new target object + dtd > instead. Let's call it for example TARGET_OBJECT_SVR4_LIBRARIES. > We should not prevent the possibility of _both_ using solib-svr4.c and > solib-target.c at the same time, or the possibility of having a completely > target-side implementation of svr4 libraries in the future, I find this implementation as the fully target-side one. SVR4 needs some information to match symbol files <-> target memory wrt prelinked files and to aid libthread_db. Maybe DYNAMIC segment offset could be sent the other way (host->target) to match the prelink displacement. And also struct link_map address for libthread_db may not be transferred and TLS variables could be read by special packets instead. I do not find any of the cases to have advantage, though. > using as is (and having gdb be aware that support is present > from qXfer:read:libraries+ in qSupported). That is you suggest to have also new qXfer:read:svr4libraries+? I do not follow how differently / more target-side could be the libraries implemented on SVR4 systems, I already tried to implement it that way. Thanks, Jan