From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27209 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2003 11:09:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26974 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2003 11:09:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Oct 2003 11:09:33 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9UB9XM04973; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 06:09:33 -0500 Received: from pobox.surrey.redhat.com (pobox.surrey.redhat.com [172.16.10.17]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9UB9V601937; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 06:09:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain.redhat.com (vpn50-22.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.22]) by pobox.surrey.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9UB9MIV029702; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:09:24 GMT To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Setting the architecture from a core file References: <200310241528.h9OFS3Cb001732@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> From: Nick Clifton Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:09:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200310241528.h9OFS3Cb001732@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> (Mark Kettenis's message of "Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:28:03 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1001 (Gnus v5.10.1) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00333.txt.bz2 Hi Mark, > My pending changes for core file support based on register sets > require[1] that we will be able to detect the OS/ABI variant from the > core file. Currently we fail to do this for most, if not all, NetBSD > ELF targets. It's possible to detect a NetBSD ELF core file by > looking whether certian NetBSD-specific notes are present. I can do > all the work from gdb/osabi.c:generic_elf_osabi_sniff_tag_sections, > but there is also the possibility to add a pseudosection in > bfd/elf.c:elfcore_grok_netbsd_procinfo(). I'm leaning towards the > latter since it avoids duplicating code and it fits better in the way > how things are done in general in BFD and GDB. But perhaps people > have a different opinion? No, I think that the latter method would be best. Cheers Nick PS. Are you officially submitting the patch you attached to your email ?