[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [patch] thread-aware coredumps, 2.5.43-C3



On Saturday 19 October 2002 06:20 am, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Therefore, I don't think we should "contaminate" our source with
> backwards compatibility hacks.  

I agree, lets get the kernel and gdb to match up as soon as possible.  

When do you think GDB get these 2 changes (section ID for extended floating 
point sections and that namesz == 5 test) in?

< snip > 

>
> In the light of the discussion above, I don't think Ingo's patch
> should change NT_FPXREG/NT_PRFPXREG from 20 to 0x46e62b7f (and the
> name shouldn't be changed either I think).  We should change it in
> GDB/BFD instead from 0x46e62b7f.  The value 20 is already publically
> available in the current kernel headers and glibc headers.  What are
> your feelings about that, Ingo?

--mgross





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]