From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Received: (qmail 17401 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2003 14:58:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 9 Jan 2003 14:58:02 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18Wg0j-00026n-00 for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2003 10:58:29 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18We8L-0004ju-00 for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2003 09:58:13 -0500 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 14:58:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: GDB Archive Subject: Re: Leaving out the OPCODES? Message-ID: <20030109145813.GA18146@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: GDB Archive References: <20030109125632.BF029388B4@postfix2.ofir.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030109125632.BF029388B4@postfix2.ofir.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00128.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 01:21:14PM +0100, James Sampson wrote: > Hello > > I was wondering what problems/limitations there would be, if I was to make a > port of the GDB and the BFD for a new target, but leave out the opcodes. Whar > exactly would happen?. It wouldn't link :) GDB needs the disassembler. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer