Hello again,

Sorry, previous patch is wrong, please ignore.
Attached is the correct one.

Regards,
Sergei

Sergei Poselenov wrote:
> Hello Daniel,
> 
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 01:27:33PM +0300, Sergei Poselenov wrote:
>>> You see, the warnings are caused by the fact that the segment 01 has
>>> address/size values which wraps to 0 in the following 'if' condition
>>> introduced by the $subj in elfread.c, elf_symfile_segments():
>>> ...
>>> && vma < segments[j]->p_vaddr + segments[j]->p_memsz)
>>
>> Drat.  Yes, this just seems like a bug.  I'll try to fix it later.
>>
> 
> Please review attached.
> 
>>> The place above is trivial to fix, but I wonder will be any
>>> other consequences to the remote debugging of such kind of
>>> images? (I can't try this at the moment)
>>
>> I don't think there should be any problems.  There would be a little
>> trouble debugging code from those sections if the image was relocated
>> (qOffsets response), but yours shouldn't be; it goes at the address in
>> the ELF file.
>>
> OK, thanks.
> 
> Regards,
> Sergei
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --- gdb-6.7/gdb/elfread.c.orig	2007-12-19 16:27:32.000000000 +0100
> +++ gdb-6.7/gdb/elfread.c	2007-12-19 16:32:21.000000000 +0100
> @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ elf_symfile_segments (bfd *abfd)
>        for (j = 0; j < num_segments; j++)
>  	if (segments[j]->p_memsz > 0
>  	    && vma >= segments[j]->p_vaddr
> -	    && vma < segments[j]->p_vaddr + segments[j]->p_memsz)
> +	    && (vma - segments[j]->p_vaddr) > segments[j]->p_memsz)
>  	  {
>  	    data->segment_info[i] = j + 1;
>  	    break;