From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30099 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2012 20:16:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 30033 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Nov 2012 20:16:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:16:15 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MDS00900YWE8900@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:16:13 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MDS00865YZ1VQA0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:16:13 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:16:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: RFC: implement 'info proc mappings' for core files In-reply-to: <87zk2cm44y.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> To: Tom Tromey Cc: sergiodj@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <831ufovxmt.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87y5ijoniv.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <871ug8nnqw.fsf__31325.5512774505$1352124723$gmane$org@fleche.redhat.com> <877gpzloii.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87zk2cm44y.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2012-11/txt/msg00548.txt.bz2 > From: Tom Tromey > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:05:33 -0700 > > Here's a version of the patch that just updates the documentation to > follow the code. > > The reason I think supporting a subset of "info proc" for core files is > a reasonable thing to do is that we're basically viewing a snapshot of > the relevant parts of /proc as written out when the process died. > > This needs a doc review. The documentation parts are OK. Thanks.