From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28883 invoked by alias); 22 Dec 2011 12:53:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 28869 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Dec 2011 12:53:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com (HELO e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com) (195.75.94.112) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:52:53 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:52:51 -0000 Received: from d06nrmr1806.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com ([9.149.39.193]) by e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com ([192.168.101.146]) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:52:43 -0000 Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.228]) by d06nrmr1806.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id pBMCqgAK2916512 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:52:42 GMT Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id pBMCqgfT013127 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 05:52:42 -0700 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with SMTP id pBMCqfxZ013013; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 05:52:41 -0700 Message-Id: <201112221252.pBMCqfxZ013013@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:52:41 +0100 Subject: Re: [rfc] Options for "info mappings" etc. (Re: [PATCH] Implement new `info core mappings' command) To: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com (Jan Kratochvil) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:15:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: alves.ped@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, sergiodj@redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20111221220130.GA31924@host2.jankratochvil.net> from "Jan Kratochvil" at Dec 21, 2011 11:01:30 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit x-cbid: 11122212-3548-0000-0000-0000007B7A5E 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/msg00783.txt.bz2 Jan Kratochvil wrote: > 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. Yes, I'd tend to agree this means it's back to the TARGET_OBJECT_PROC approach ... But let's give Pedro the chance to comment, since he was the one who championed the generic target file based approach. Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com