This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: should gdb require '.text' and '.data' sections?


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.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]