From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10702 invoked by alias); 30 May 2005 15:26:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 8651 invoked by uid 22791); 30 May 2005 15:21:33 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 May 2005 15:21:33 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4UFLVn7023047; Mon, 30 May 2005 11:21:32 -0400 Received: from pobox.toronto.redhat.com (pobox.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.4]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j4UFLVO08130; Mon, 30 May 2005 11:21:31 -0400 Received: from touchme.toronto.redhat.com (IDENT:postfix@touchme.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.9]) by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j4UFLUMX025850; Mon, 30 May 2005 11:21:30 -0400 Received: from [172.16.14.72] (toocool.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.72]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8B5800104; Mon, 30 May 2005 11:21:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <429B2F7A.5000600@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 16:35:00 -0000 From: Jeff Johnston User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040805 Netscape/7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andreas Schwab Cc: James E Wilson , binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH]: add ia64 vDSO support to bfd_from_remote_memory References: <428CC218.1040304@redhat.com> <1117233617.24670.25.camel@aretha.corp.specifixinc.com> <1117236834.24670.85.camel@aretha.corp.specifixinc.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00747.txt.bz2 Andreas Schwab wrote: > James E Wilson writes: > > >>On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 15:40, James E Wilson wrote: >> >>>Putting this together, gives the following alternative patch which I >>>have attached, which may be a better solution. I have no way to test >>>this, as I don't know how to reproduce the problem, and probably don't >>>even have the right OS versions necessary to reproduce. >> >>This time really attached. > > > Neither patch makes any difference in behviour of backtraces through > signal handler or system calls. They still don't work. > > Andreas. > Because I haven't updated FSF gdb due to its dependence on this patch... -- Jeff J.