From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19073 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2011 20:04:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 19061 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Nov 2011 20:04:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:03:46 +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 pA9K3eTs022595 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:03:40 -0500 Received: from psique (ovpn-112-51.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.112.51]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA9K3WfL012983; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:03:35 -0500 From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Pedro Alves Cc: "Ulrich Weigand" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc][3/3] Remote core file generation: memory map References: <201111091827.pA9IR7UH023183@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> <201111091930.53937.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:04:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201111091930.53937.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Wed, 9 Nov 2011 19:30:53 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (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: 2011-11/txt/msg00263.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves writes: > On Wednesday 09 November 2011 18:27:07, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > >> OK. In the meantime, I've noticed the discussion going on in parallel >> on the "info core mappings" commands. If we implement this, we have >> the somewhat weird situation that we can show mappings for native >> processes and for core files, but not for processes attached to remotely, >> even if the target is also Linux ... >> >> It would appear to me that this command actually just needs the very >> same data I need here for the generate-core-file command, namely the >> current list of memory mappings. >> >> If we create a new target object for VMA memory mappings, maybe we >> ought to then have a standard "info mappings" (or the like) command >> implemented in GDB *common code* that works likewise on native, >> core file, *and* also gdbserver targets; in fact, on all targets >> that provide that new target object (which may need to be a bit >> richer, e.g. provide mapped file names as well)? > > Sounds like a good idea indeed. I totally agree. When doing the `info core' patch, I often found myself thinking about how `info proc mappings' needed to be reworked. Anyway, just to be clear, will this new command be implemented differently than the current `info proc mappings'? I don't know about you, but cat'ing /proc/PID/maps is something that could be improved. Thanks.