From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12743 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2009 02:26:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 12735 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jul 2009 02:26:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:26:17 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 898B4108D0; Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:26:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA361061D; Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:26:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MUWxh-0004TC-Es; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:26:13 -0400 Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: Paul Pluzhnikov , gdb@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [7.0] PR/9723: gdb breakpoints silently fail on PIE binaries Message-ID: <20090725022613.GB16383@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Thiago Jung Bauermann , Paul Pluzhnikov , gdb@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker References: <200907192257.08197.thiago.bauermann@gmail.com> <8ac60eac0907192113s54f996a7m2fac203e07687272@mail.gmail.com> <200907242312.42358.thiago.bauermann@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200907242312.42358.thiago.bauermann@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-07/txt/msg00196.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:12:41PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > Now I have this issue, I'd like to ask people's opinion about it: by design > (or defect?) the BFD library is a PITA to access the program header. I feel > very tempted to use elf32.h and elf64.h directly in order to check that field. > My only worry is that a cross-debugging session with a win32 gdb and a linux > remote target would not be possible, unless windows includes such sysv elf > headers too (perhaps it does?). elfread.c:elf_symfile_segments. It's not much of a pain really? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery