From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8531 invoked by alias); 16 May 2002 23:24:50 -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 8524 invoked from network); 16 May 2002 23:24:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 May 2002 23:24:48 -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 QAA09230; Thu, 16 May 2002 16:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE43C83.BC71967A@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:24:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: Jason R Thorpe , Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFA] Don't gdbarch_init for core files References: <20020509185824.U3435@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> <3CDB38BB.4030807@cygnus.com> <20020509212134.W3435@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> <3CDDD7ED.9080302@cygnus.com> <20020511203035.H3435@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> <20020512034536.GA25145@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00682.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 08:30:35PM -0700, Jason R Thorpe wrote: > > On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 10:48:13PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > > is [almost] no different to deleting the call - GDB isn't yet built with > > > multiple architectures so the two architectures will always be identical. > > > > > > Looking at the date/author of the original patch [and making a wild > > > guess], I think the original change was related to debugging 32 bit core > > > files on a SPARC64 system. Michael? > > > > Well, I know Solaris dumps a 32-bit core file for a 32-bit binary, > > and a 64-bit core file for a 64-bit binary. > > > > I simply fail to see any reason why you'd want to re-initialize the > > gdbarch for a core file. > > > > I guess I really do need to know why the change was added in the first > > place (the message with the original patch doesn't describe the problem > > the patch is trying to solve). > > Just a guess - debugging a core file without an original binary? Bingo! ;-)