From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15641 invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2005 18:46:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15629 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jun 2005 18:46:03 -0000 Received: from legolas.inter.net.il (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:46:03 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-72-217.inter.net.il [80.230.72.217]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id EQA40201 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:44:54 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:46:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Victor STINNER CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com In-reply-to: <20050616162605.GA32580@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:26:05 -0400) Subject: Re: Display libc function names instead of address ? Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <1118892960.12713.5.camel@haypopc> <20050616044313.GA5950@nevyn.them.org> <1118934045.2827.4.camel@haypopc> <20050616151934.GA11296@nevyn.them.org> <1118936759.24041.23.camel@haypopc> <20050616162605.GA32580@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00222.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:26:05 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 05:45:59PM +0200, Victor STINNER wrote: > > Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 à 11:19 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz a écrit : > > > Thanks for checking! That's output from objdump, right? It doesn't > > > seem to work for me in GDB, just in objdump. But perhaps I can figure > > > out where to wire it in. > > > > Yep, it's in objdump. I think that you just have to update bfd and > > opcodes libraries, no ? > > No - GDB also needs a change. > > This has been on my todo list for months, ever since objdump gained > support. Here's an implementation - the patch applies to GDB CVS. > Elena, is this patch OK? > > Tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu. It leaves a stray if (1) to minimize the > size of the diff; I would remove that as an obvious followup. Will this change modify what GDB displays in response to some command? If so, please see whether something in the manual needs a suitable change as well. TIA