From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4442 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2003 17:29:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4435 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2003 17:29:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Jul 2003 17:29:10 -0000 Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05675; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:20:25 -0400 Received: from catdog ([10.4.2.2]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA27608; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:29:10 -0400 Message-ID: <090201c3463f$acc520f0$0202040a@catdog> From: "Kris Warkentin" To: "Daniel Jacobowitz" Cc: "Andrew Cagney" , "Gdb@Sources.Redhat.Com" References: <062401c34590$97cd09b0$0202040a@catdog> <3F0B315E.7000702@redhat.com> <064e01c34615$0b152ae0$0202040a@catdog> <20030709150847.GA19020@nevyn.them.org> <087801c34630$479de310$0202040a@catdog> <20030709162430.GA20778@nevyn.them.org> Subject: Re: [rfc] Print solib events in mi-mode Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:29:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00103.txt.bz2 > On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:39:26AM -0400, Kris Warkentin wrote: > > > TBH, I'd rather see load catchpoints implemented and MI-ified for > > > solib-svr4.c. The natural implementation returns more useful > > > information, namely what libraries were loaded or unloaded. It should > > > be easy but it's never trickled to the top of anyone's TODO. > > > > What about solib-events on non-svr4 systems? QNX is implementing the CDT > > for Eclipse and we'd like to have equal functionality across platforms. > > I picked on solib-svr4 because it's the one normally found lacking. At > least one of the solib backends already does this - probably SOM? So you're saying that you're not receptive to this patch but you'd consider a svr4 patch for the load catchpoints? Kris