From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7545 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2002 18:15:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7533 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2002 18:15:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Apr 2002 18:15:47 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27863; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CBEFC88.37807AEF@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:15:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: josef ezra CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: should gdb require '.text' and '.data' sections? References: <02ea01c1e6eb$65f850c0$ad219fa8@lss.emc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00601.txt.bz2 josef ezra wrote: > > Hello > > I'm trying to debug a symbol file that has no '.text' section. Unlike 5.0 > version, the new SECT_OFF_TEXT(objfile) macro calls (no-return) internal > error and prevent the read. > > Should gdb work that way (requiring '.text' and '.data' sections)? > > If not, can we consider the first sections flagged 'SEC_CODE'/'SEC_DATA' as > substitutes? Or maybe better have a default 0/1 values (like 5.0)? Both > should work in my case. I agree, gdb should not require .text and .data. For one thing, a simple embedded assembler program might have no initialized data. For another, those segments might be called something else.