From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19645 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2012 11:41:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 19633 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Nov 2012 11:41:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,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, 23 Nov 2012 11:41:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qANBf49l013946 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 23 Nov 2012 06:41:04 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-39.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.39]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qANBf0oB027046 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 23 Nov 2012 06:41:03 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:41:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Luis Gustavo Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch+7.5.1] Work around PR libc/13097 "linux-vdso.so.1" #3 Message-ID: <20121123114059.GA12995@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20121122201737.GA32172@host2.jankratochvil.net> <50AF5E5C.5030205@mentor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50AF5E5C.5030205@mentor.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: 2012-11/txt/msg00611.txt.bz2 On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:30:36 +0100, Luis Gustavo wrote: > I don't know about the others, but i find the name > "solib_not_found_is_ok" a little odd. Me too. > What about "is_ignored_dso", or "ignored_solib_p" or something in those > veins? The problem is they are not ignored. > What about linux-gate(32|64).so? I have not found any: egrep -r 'linux-gate(32|64)' linux Have you? Sure the grep above may miss it. Thanks, Jan