This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: should gdb require '.text' and '.data' sections?
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- To: josef ezra <jezra at emc dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:04:08 -0700
- Subject: Re: should gdb require '.text' and '.data' sections?
- Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
- References: <02ea01c1e6eb$65f850c0$ad219fa8@lss.emc.com>
josef ezra wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I'm trying to debug a symbol file that has no '.text' section. Unlike 5.0
> version, the new SECT_OFF_TEXT(objfile) macro calls (no-return) internal
> error and prevent the read.
>
> Should gdb work that way (requiring '.text' and '.data' sections)?
>
> If not, can we consider the first sections flagged 'SEC_CODE'/'SEC_DATA' as
> substitutes? Or maybe better have a default 0/1 values (like 5.0)? Both
> should work in my case.
I agree, gdb should not require .text and .data. For one thing,
a simple embedded assembler program might have no initialized data.
For another, those segments might be called something else.