Re: About the gdb prec save/restore reverse exec behavior error (gcore error)

[Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>]

Sorry I make a mistake, please ignore prev mail.

The right mail is:
Faint, I found that issue just can reproduce in amd64 ubuntu 9.0.4
and i386 ubuntu 9.0.4.

It's gcc is 4.3.3.  glibc is 2.9.

In amd64 gcc 4.1.2 glibc 2.5 and i386 gcc 4.2.4 glibc 2.7, it cannot
be reproduced.

I think we need do more work on it and need more people's help.

Thanks,
Hui



On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:24, Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
> Faint, I found that issue just cannot reproduce in amd64 ubuntu 9.0.4
> and i386 ubuntu 9.0.4.
>
> It's gcc is 4.3.3.  glibc is 2.9.
>
> In amd64 gcc 4.1.2 glibc 2.5 and i386 gcc 4.2.4 glibc 2.7, it cannot
> be reproduced.
>
> I think we need do more work on it and need more people's help.
>
> Thanks,
> Hui
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 02:29, Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
>> Hui Zhu wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> I make a patch to fix it.  I try in i386-ubuntu.  It is OK now.
>>> Please help me review it.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Hui
>>>
>>> 2009-11-04  Hui Zhu  <teawater@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>        * gcore.c (gcore_copy_callback): Remove bfd_get_section_flags
>>> check.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>  gcore.c |    4 ----
>>>  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> --- a/gcore.c
>>> +++ b/gcore.c
>>> @@ -510,10 +510,6 @@ gcore_copy_callback (bfd *obfd, asection
>>>   struct cleanup *old_chain = NULL;
>>>   void *memhunk;
>>>
>>> -  /* Read-only sections are marked; we don't have to copy their contents.
>>>  */
>>> -  if ((bfd_get_section_flags (obfd, osec) & SEC_LOAD) == 0)
>>> -    return;
>>> -
>>>   /* Only interested in "load" sections.  */
>>>   if (strncmp ("load", bfd_section_name (obfd, osec), 4) != 0)
>>>     return;
>>>
>>
>> No, this is not acceptable.  We can't save ALL of the loadable
>> sections, it will make the gcore file much bigger than necessary.
>> Most loadable sections are code, and do not need to be saved.
>>
>> We will need to choose explicitly just the loadable sections
>> that we need to save.
>>
>>
>