From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30898 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2011 22:01:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 30889 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Dec 2011 22:01:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.9 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; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:01:37 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBLM1YRb004291 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:01:34 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-60.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.60]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBLM1UkN028113 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:01:33 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:36:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: alves.ped@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, sergiodj@redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc] Options for "info mappings" etc. (Re: [PATCH] Implement new `info core mappings' command) Message-ID: <20111221220130.GA31924@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <201112071755.pB7HtTK3024601@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> <201112202215.pBKMFkrG002624@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201112202215.pBKMFkrG002624@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.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: 2011-12/txt/msg00755.txt.bz2 On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:15:46 +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > protocol, for one simple reason: I cannot open /proc/PID/... because > I do not even know the PID to use. With the remote target, the "PID" > used within GDB may have no relationship whatsoever to the actual PID > on a Linux remote target; in fact, it usually is the "magic" 42000 ... > > While in some cases, the (a) remote PID may be encoded into the GDB > TID field, I cannot use this in -tdep code either, because when used > with the native target, the TID is never a PID/LWP. > > Any suggestions? It nicely proves the filenames should be abstracted by the target gdbserver. Regards, Jan