From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20738 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2005 16:39:20 -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 20660 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2005 16:39:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO heavymobile.ringle.org) (12.153.69.6) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Mar 2005 16:39:16 -0000 Received: by heavymobile.ringle.org (Postfix, from userid 503) id 22DDB6FE90; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:39:16 -0500 (EST) From: Jon Ringle To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: arm core analysis on x86 host Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:39:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <200503281829.19775.jon.ringle@comdial.com> <200503291113.53817.jon.ringle@comdial.com> <20050329163326.GA8753@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20050329163326.GA8753@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200503291139.15566.jon.ringle@comdial.com> X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00281.txt.bz2 On Tuesday 29 March 2005 11:33, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:13:53AM -0500, Jon Ringle wrote: > > On Monday 28 March 2005 23:58, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > Look harder :-) sniff_core_bfd is disabled if you provide the new > > > mechanism. It should be all you need. > > > > I assume that you are refering to the test that is done at the beginning > > of sniff_core_bfd(): > > /* Don't sniff if we have support for register sets in CORE_GDBARCH. > > */ if (core_gdbarch && gdbarch_regset_from_core_section_p (core_gdbarch)) > > return NULL; > > > > Howerver, the value of core_gdbarch is not the same as the gdbarch that > > was used for the set_gdbarch_regset_from_core_section() causing the test > > to fail and fall through to the core_file_fns loop. > > The two being different is not a problem; however, the question is why > they are so different that they do not both pass through wherever you > are calling set_gdbarch_regset_from_core_section. > > At least two gdbarches will be constructed before the core file is > opened, but you only show one call to > set_gdbarch_regset_from_core_section. > > Where did you put it? I put a call to set_gdbarch_regset_from_core_section at the end of arm_linux_init_abi(), just like ppc_linux_init_abi().