From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1220 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2003 23:57:51 -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 1213 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2003 23:57:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2003 23:57:50 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (toocool.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.72]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7750080018E; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 18:57:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FCFC9FD.4040106@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:57:00 -0000 From: "J. Johnston" Organization: Red Hat Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: davidm@hpl.hp.com Cc: Andrew Cagney , Kevin Buettner , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com Subject: Re: RFA: ia64 portion of libunwind patch References: <3FA2B71A.3080905@redhat.com> <3FA2CA1B.7000502@redhat.com> <16290.59502.799536.383397@napali.hpl.hp.com> <3FAC12D3.2070207@redhat.com> <16300.8192.489647.740612@napali.hpl.hp.com> <3FAC2454.2030009@redhat.com> <16300.9949.513264.716812@napali.hpl.hp.com> <3FAC2D03.8070607@redhat.com> <16300.12503.585501.180768@napali.hpl.hp.com> <3FAC33B3.2030403@redhat.com> <1031108001337.ZM18506@localhost.localdomain> <3FAC388A.10207@redhat.com> <16300.39298.323956.667764@napali.hpl.hp.com> <3FAD7F01.2050407@gnu.org> <16304.3297.662733.250523@napali.hpl.hp.com> <3FB0149C.1060908@redhat.com> <16323.61371.6654.950171@napali.hpl.hp.com> <16334.39106.297492.636397@napali.hpl.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <16334.39106.297492.636397@napali.hpl.hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00159.txt.bz2 David, A questions regarding the .so name issue you mentioned. We are already grabbing the function names from UNW_OBJ macro from the generic libunwind.h header. I think we could generate the libunwind.so name similarly using the UNW_TARGET. Any problems with this strategy? (any scenarios where this value doesn't match the extension used by the libunwind library?) -- Jeff J. David Mosberger wrote: > I have not gotten any feedback regarding my mail & patch from Nov 10: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-11/msg00588.html > > libunwind v0.95 has been released in the meantime so I'd appreciate if > this patch could be checked in if it looks OK. > > Thanks, > > --david >