From: Takis Psarogiannakopoulos <takis@XFree86.Org>
To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: GDB 5.1/Core files and ptids
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:16:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0201161102030.11703-100000@public.xfree86.org> (raw)
Hello,
Trying to port DG/UX source files from gdb 5.0 to version
5.1 (and hopping to submit these at last to GNU) I have found
that there is a serious inconsistency for the BFD core files.
Before one could overload a process pid with a thread id
using the macro:
#define MERGEPID(PID, TID) (((PID) & 0xffff) | ((TID) << 16))
Note that this will give us again an integer!
In 5.1 someone change this to a stucture called ptid. However
it seems to me that you forgot to implemnet something similar
to BFD.
Problem:
Suppose that one has a line co code of the type
sprintf (section_name, "%s/%d", name, inferior_pid);
OR of the type
struct thread_info *tp;
...
sprintf (section_name, "%s/%d", name, tp->pid);
inside the gdb/core-dgux.c file. Note that this integer
(tp->pid or inferior_pid) it should contains/be overloaded
with the tid too!
Clearly neven if in the 5.1 we have a tp->ptid one cannot
write
sprintf (section_name, "%s/%d", name, tp->ptid);
because ptid is now a structure!
Especially when, even in the new gdb-5.1/bfd we find:
======
static int
elfcore_make_pid (abfd)
bfd *abfd;
{
return ((elf_tdata (abfd)->core_lwpid << 16)
+ (elf_tdata (abfd)->core_pid));
}
=======
Any suggestions? Eg can the guy that introduced these new
ptids how specicfically to rewrite the line:
sprintf (section_name, "%s/%d", name, tp->pid);
(pid is from 5.0 ie. a mixed pid but still integer!)
having given the tp->ptid and taking in account the
elfcore_make_pid that is used by bfd!!!
We want to rewrite the bit above so that gdb-5.1 will
understand! that this section has info about the pid=
PIDGET(tp->ptid) and the lwp=TIDGET(tp->ptid). And
reflect these when asked.
Regards,
Takis
PS: My suggestion will be as follows:
#define CORE_BFD_MERGEPID(PID, TID) (((PID) & 0xffff) | ((TID) << 16))
(This is just the old gdb 5.0 MERGEPID style).
pid_t mixed_bfd_core_pid;
...
process_pid = PIDGET(tp->ptid);
process_tid = TIDGET(tp->ptid);
mixed_bfd_core_pid = CORE_BFD_ERGEPID( process_pid, process_tid);
sprintf (section_name, "%s/%d", name, mixed_bfd_core_pid);
Would that be OK ? Would gdb-5.1 understand correctly this section?
next reply other threads:[~2002-01-16 19:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-01-16 11:16 Takis Psarogiannakopoulos [this message]
2002-01-16 12:53 ` Kevin Buettner
2002-01-17 6:09 Takis Psarogiannakopoulos
2002-01-18 12:26 ` Andrew Cagney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.BSF.4.21.0201161102030.11703-100000@public.xfree86.org \
--to=takis@xfree86.org \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox