From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32138 invoked by alias); 15 May 2003 23:58:42 -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 32056 invoked from network); 15 May 2003 23:58:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.157.166.107) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 May 2003 23:58:41 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D1D2B2F; Thu, 15 May 2003 19:58:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3EC429A4.1020906@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 23:58:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roland McGrath Cc: Elena Zannoni , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [branch patch] core files as symfiles References: <200305152219.h4FMJc812037@magilla.sf.frob.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00269.txt.bz2 >> Did we settle on this being the solution though? Not as far as I know. > I think the >> /proc/PID/auxv approach is a bit cleaner. Yep. More importantly it solves the general case. > We're talking about core files, so what you mean is an NT_AUXV note that > would give the same information that /proc/PID/auxv would give for a live > process. It remains to see whether the auxv approach will be accepted in > the kernel. Perhaphs someone should find out. What's the best mailing list? > If that is done, then the corelow.c patch will be superfluous. Right. And I think both GDB and the Linux kernel will be the better for it. Andrew