From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7638 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2002 17:55:53 -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 7630 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2002 17:55:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 17:55:52 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17pCeb-0007Kj-00 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:55:57 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17pBig-0007S5-00 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:56:06 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 10:55:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb Subject: Re: struct environment Message-ID: <20020911175606.GB28440@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb References: <20020906150620.GA19200@nevyn.them.org> <20020911003132.GA11810@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00100.txt.bz2 On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 10:29:34AM -0700, David Carlton wrote: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 20:31:32 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > > > I believe the SYMBOL_ALIASES stuff has all died; it was never in a > > standard FSF GCC, just in a Cygnus product. We'll need to handle > > something along these lines in the fortold day of wonders, when we > > actually have thought of something clever to do when debugging > > inlined functions; but for now I doubt anyone would miss this. > > Thanks for the pointer: > says > something similar, and asks for permission to delete it (together with > SYMBOL_RANGES). But I guess it was never deleted (and the > LOC_COMPUTED stuff that that message refers to hasn't yet been > implemented). Hasn't yet been polished and integrated, rather - you can find the code in the list archives for a month or two ago. > For now, I'll just leave out that part of the code (or, better, > include it but #if 0 it out and add an explanatory comment). Sounds fine to me. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer