This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfc] Options for "info mappings" etc. (Re: [PATCH] Implement new `info core mappings' command)
- From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- To: jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com (Jan Kratochvil)
- Cc: alves dot ped at gmail dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, sergiodj at redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:52:41 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: [rfc] Options for "info mappings" etc. (Re: [PATCH] Implement new `info core mappings' command)
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:15:46 +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > protocol, for one simple reason: I cannot open /proc/PID/... because
> > I do not even know the PID to use. With the remote target, the "PID"
> > used within GDB may have no relationship whatsoever to the actual PID
> > on a Linux remote target; in fact, it usually is the "magic" 42000 ...
> >
> > While in some cases, the (a) remote PID may be encoded into the GDB
> > TID field, I cannot use this in -tdep code either, because when used
> > with the native target, the TID is never a PID/LWP.
> >
> > Any suggestions?
>
> It nicely proves the filenames should be abstracted by the target gdbserver.
Yes, I'd tend to agree this means it's back to the TARGET_OBJECT_PROC
approach ... But let's give Pedro the chance to comment, since he was
the one who championed the generic target file based approach.
Bye,
Ulrich
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com