This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH/RFC 01/02 v2] Refactor PRPSINFO handling on Binutils
- From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- To: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Binutils Development <binutils at sourceware dot org>, GDB Patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:31:04 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 01/02 v2] Refactor PRPSINFO handling on Binutils
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20121218173747.GA24546@host2.jankratochvil.net> <email@example.com>
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:19:06 +0100, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 18 2012, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> The patch covers the existing targets that already implemented the
> *_write_core_note function, with the exception of i386 which is a new
> I disagree. As I said above, the patch covers all targets that were
> already implementing *_write_core_note. If some new target decides to
> implement it, it is just a matter of including "elf-psinfo.h" and using
> the right structures.
> As I said above, I disagree. The header file is useful for having a
> single place which defines those structures (i.e., i386, x32 and ARM use
> the same elf_external_prpsinfo32 strucutre).
That is a matter of opinion -> bfd maintainers, whether to copy the definition
into each arch file or have some common header file for it despite it is
compatible only with some of the archs.
> Also, the header is useful
> for including in the BFD clients (I'm thiking "GDB" here) which can use
> the elf_internal_prpsinfo strucuture to pass information to BFD.
I forgot about elf_internal_prpsinfo, that one needs to be included in BFD
applications (like GDB). But elf_internal_prpsinfo should be then in
a different file, maybe bfd.h? (I do not know much.) GDB does not need to
know the elf_external_* layouts so those should not be defined in header
file(s) available to GDB.