From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15750 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2014 16:37:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 15739 invoked by uid 89); 11 Sep 2014 16:37:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:37:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8BGb5W1002108 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:37:05 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8BGb34o016096; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:37:04 -0400 Message-ID: <5411CFAE.7040805@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:37:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans , Jan Kratochvil , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: time to workaround libc/13097 in fsf gdb? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00362.txt.bz2 On 09/11/2014 05:25 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > Hi. > > It's been three years and various people are doing similar things to > deal with glibc's that are out there (regardless of whatever glibc > decides to do). > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-08/msg00331.html > > As for the patch itself, I wonder if the "fix" belongs in solib-svr4.c > instead of solib.c. E.g., where we compare the so name with "", > also check for linux-vdso.so.1 and linux-gate.so.1 ? Also, we know the address of the vDSO/gate (symfile-mem.c). Can't we use that to match instead of the name? I think that's what Ulrich meant in https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13097#c1 with "You must already have magic code in gdb to handle this DSO". ISTR having seen a patch that does that, but I can't seem to find it. Thanks, Pedro Alves