From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7914 invoked by alias); 17 May 2002 17:54:21 -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 7860 invoked from network); 17 May 2002 17:54:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 May 2002 17:54:18 -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 KAA20162; Fri, 17 May 2002 10:54:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CE5408C.A2F48EC1@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 10:54:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: m.m.kettenis@chello.nl CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, drow@mvista.com, ac131313@cygnus.com, thorpej@wasabisystems.com Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFA] Don't gdbarch_init for core files References: <20020517135849.ZGDH1268.amsfep15-int.chello.nl@[127.0.0.1]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00734.txt.bz2 m.m.kettenis@chello.nl wrote: > > Michael Snyder wrote: > > > > 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! ;-) > > Ah, but in that case, why not call set_gdbarch_from_file() only when exec_bfd is NULL? As in: > > if (!exec_bfd) > set_gdbarch_from_file (core_bfd); > > I tested this, and it seems to solve the problems for me when testing my pending i386 multi-arch patches on Linux. I cannot immediately think of any objections to this. Michael