From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8954 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2013 15:46:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 8935 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jan 2013 15:46:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:45:46 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r03FjjaP009498 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 3 Jan 2013 10:45:45 -0500 Received: from psique (ovpn-113-50.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.50]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r03Fjeht029437; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 10:45:41 -0500 From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Binutils Development , GDB Patches , Pedro Alves , "H.J. Lu" Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 01/02 v2] Refactor PRPSINFO handling on Binutils References: <20121218173747.GA24546@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121218193104.GA29194@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20130101143027.GA17408@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20130103134431.GA4099@host2.jankratochvil.net> X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:46:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20130103134431.GA4099@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Thu, 3 Jan 2013 14:44:31 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2013-01/txt/msg00040.txt.bz2 On Thursday, January 03 2013, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 00:32:12 +0100, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >> On Tuesday, January 01 2013, Jan Kratochvil wrote: >> > On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 02:49:36 +0100, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >> >> +/* Internal structure which holds information to be included in the >> >> + PRPSINFO section of the corefile. >> >> + >> >> + This is an "internal" structure in the sense that it should be used to >> >> + pass information to BFD (via the `elfcore_write_prpsinfo', for example), >> >> + so things like endianess shouldn't be an issue. This structure will >> >> + eventually be converted in one of the `elf_external_*' structures >> >> + below. */ >> >> + >> >> +struct elf_internal_prpsinfo >> >> + { >> >> + char pr_state; /* Numeric process state. */ >> >> + char pr_sname; /* Char for pr_state. */ >> >> + char pr_zomb; /* Zombie. */ >> >> + char pr_nice; /* Nice val. */ >> >> + unsigned long pr_flag; /* Flags. */ >> >> + unsigned int pr_uid; >> >> + unsigned int pr_gid; >> >> + int pr_pid, pr_ppid, pr_pgrp, pr_sid; >> >> + /* Lots missing */ >> > >> > This comment seems off-topic here. It fully represents the core file >> > structure. >> >> I can remove the comment, but it doesn't say that the structure does not >> represent a corefile struct. It just explains the reason why it is >> called "internal". > > As /usr/include/linux/elfcore.h (=from Linux kernel) contains: > > struct elf_prpsinfo > { > [...] > pid_t pr_pid, pr_ppid, pr_pgrp, pr_sid; > /* Lots missing */ > char pr_fname[16]; /* filename of executable */ > [...] > }; > > we should look at it from the point of Linux kernel. It probably made sense > as Linux kernel could store some more info there. Ops, sorry, I thought you were talking about the comment above the structure, and not about the "Lots missing". Then I agree, it can be removed. Sorry about the confusion. I will send an updated patch in a few moments. -- Sergio