From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4363 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2011 20:40:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 4349 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Oct 2011 20:40:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from qnx.com (HELO hub6.qnx.com) (209.226.137.86) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:39:57 +0000 Received: by hub6.qnx.com (Postfix, from userid 32767) id 8C70E3465019; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:38:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from EXHTS1.ott.qnx.com (exhts1.ott.qnx.com [10.222.2.110]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub6.qnx.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70E333464EE5; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:36:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.42.107.93] (10.42.107.93) by qnx.com (10.222.2.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:36:49 -0400 Message-ID: <4E8A1D11.3070006@qnx.com> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:40:00 -0000 From: Aleksandar Ristovski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110923 Thunderbird/7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: Subject: Re: patch: solib_break from _r_debug.r_brk References: <4E847A11.6080800@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00050.txt.bz2 On 11-10-03 04:12 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Aleksandar" == Aleksandar Ristovski writes: > > Aleksandar> + const unsigned ptrsz > Aleksandar> + = builtin_type (target_gdbarch)->builtin_func_ptr->length; > > You should use TYPE_LENGTH here, not ->length. > > Aleksandar> Aleksandar Ristovski > Aleksandar> * solib-svr4.c (svr4_fetch_solib_break_from_r_debug): New. > Aleksandar> (enable_break): Use new function. > > I don't really know much about this area; I think it would be better for > someone else to review the patch. Be sure to ping it weekly. After a > decent interval without replies I will take a stab at it. > Tom, thanks for looking into this, but I have meanwhile done further testing on gnu/linux and uncovered that it is not worth pursuing. While it works for us, it doesn't on gnu/linux and I am not sure it can be made generic enough to defend it: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-10/msg00043.html Sorry about that. --- Aleksandar