This is the mail archive of the
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.
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE