From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14625 invoked by alias); 12 Sep 2014 12:46:30 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 14610 invoked by uid 89); 12 Sep 2014 12:46:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:46:28 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8CCkP4d009544 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 12 Sep 2014 08:46:25 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8CCkNKN022044; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 08:46:24 -0400 Message-ID: <5412EB1F.40309@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:46:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: Doug Evans , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: time to workaround libc/13097 in fsf gdb? References: <5411CFAE.7040805@redhat.com> <20140912115452.GA5626@host2.jankratochvil.net> <5412E3AC.80203@redhat.com> <20140912123320.GA8704@host2.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20140912123320.GA8704@host2.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00400.txt.bz2 On 09/12/2014 01:33 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 14:14:36 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: >> I was more inclined to leave the vdso in the shared library list >> though, like ldd does, than filtering it out. Like, similar to >> your gdbarch_solib_file_not_found_is_ok patch, but look at the >> addresses rather than filenames in the hook. I'm not sure >> whether that'd complicate things too much. > > Everything can be done but this is again changing a direction/behavior of GDB > upon receiving a fix of current behavior. So far GDB has not been including > vDSO in the library list and the patch was fixing that behavior. One can go > very far from doing one fix up to rewriting GDB from scratch. I think that's a bit uncalled for and unfair -- AIUI, your original patch even did that; it left vdso.so in the list. I had said: "Alternatively to hard coding the names, maybe we could match the vdso address found through that with the addresses found iterating the dynamic linker list, to know which dynamic linker entry is the vdso." And your new patch said: "But now it discards any shared libraries which match a symbol file loaded via add-symbol-file-from-memory. Which may be OK but it is more widespread change than before." I was only clarifying what I had already said in the message you replied to. I have no idea what problems you found in the original patch that led to redesigning the patch to filter out instead, or what you saw that would suggest that doing that change would require tilting so much in the "rewriting GDB from scratch" direction. Thanks, Pedro Alves