From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27586 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2004 15:38:17 -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 27571 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2004 15:38:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 Aug 2004 15:38:16 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i75FcBe3000467 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:38:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i75FcBa05062; Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:38:11 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6CED2B9D; Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:37:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <41125457.3060908@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 15:38:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040801 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Orjan Friberg Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Extending corefile.exp to handle remote targets References: <41125017.6030901@axis.com> In-Reply-To: <41125017.6030901@axis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00118.txt.bz2 > I'm looking at testing the core dump functionality for CRIS (remote target, Linux-based). (The gcore functionality is not an option for a remote target, right?). There's also auxv.exp and, to a lesser extent, bigcore.exp. I've actually been thinking of submitting a patch that splits auxv.exp in two - separately test auxv with corefile. That way it's easier to differentiate between broken native and broken corefile auxv. But what ever. > I was thinking I should extend corefile.exp to work with a remote target, probably adding a register restoration check, and possibly even unifying it with gcore.exp - or is there a reason for the difference between the two? On the surface it looks like the only difference is how the core file is generated. > > Any hints or warnings before I proceed? Watch out for BFD! Writing cross core-files doesn't work because the relevant BFD code assumes HOST == TARGET :-( It's been suggested that we [gdb] should instead implement our own local core file manipulation routines and bypass what's provided by BFD. Andrew