From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14131 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2009 15:04:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 14059 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jun 2009 15:04:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (140.186.70.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:03:57 +0000 Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1MCaxW-00062z-K9; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:03:54 -0400 From: Eli Zaretskii To: Aleksandar Ristovski CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Aleksandar Ristovski on Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:09:34 -0400) Subject: Re: [patch/doc] ptid from core section Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: Message-Id: Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:04:00 -0000 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00099.txt.bz2 > From: Aleksandar Ristovski > Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:09:34 -0400 > > Providing > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-06/msg00079.html > gets approved, this patch adds a clue about new callbacks in > internal gdb documentation. Thanks. However, > Once BFD support is available, writing the apropriate > -@code{regset_from_core_section} architecture function should be all > +@code{regset_from_core_section} and optionally > +@code{ptid_from_core_section_name} and @code{core_section_name_from_ptid} > +architecture functions should be all > that is needed in order to add support for core files in @value{GDBN}. this say that the latter two APIs are optional, but does not say a word when would the programmer want to define these optional APIs and what would she lose if she doesn't. Can you find a concise way of saying that without getting into too elaborate details?