Re: [PATCH/RFC 01/02 v2] Refactor PRPSINFO handling on Binutils

[Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:19:06 +0100, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 18 2012, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> The patch covers the existing targets that already implemented the
> *_write_core_note function, with the exception of i386 which is a new
> implementation.

OK.


> I disagree.  As I said above, the patch covers all targets that were
> already implementing *_write_core_note.  If some new target decides to
> implement it, it is just a matter of including "elf-psinfo.h" and using
> the right structures.

OK.


> As I said above, I disagree.  The header file is useful for having a
> single place which defines those structures (i.e., i386, x32 and ARM use
> the same elf_external_prpsinfo32 strucutre).

That is a matter of opinion -> bfd maintainers, whether to copy the definition
into each arch file or have some common header file for it despite it is
compatible only with some of the archs.


> Also, the header is useful
> for including in the BFD clients (I'm thiking "GDB" here) which can use
> the elf_internal_prpsinfo strucuture to pass information to BFD.

I forgot about elf_internal_prpsinfo, that one needs to be included in BFD
applications (like GDB).  But elf_internal_prpsinfo should be then in
a different file, maybe bfd.h?  (I do not know much.)  GDB does not need to
know the elf_external_* layouts so those should not be defined in header
file(s) available to GDB.


Thanks,
Jan