This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Are ppc*_elf_write_core_note Os-specific?
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- To: John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd dot org>, Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich dot Weigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org, gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:44:07 +1030
- Subject: Re: Are ppc*_elf_write_core_note Os-specific?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1736699 dot V7zq9VJIrx at ralph dot baldwin dot cx> <20160119001819 dot GB17028 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org>
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:48:19AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> PowerPC64 glibc even now doesn't defing prstatus32_t. :-( It seems
> only sparc and s390 do so. So PowerPC would need a
> hosts/powerpc-linux.h to define them for Linux, with some configury
> changes, like hosts/x86-64linux.h does for x86-64 Linux. I'll see
> about making those changes.
> Note that elf_backend_write_core_note is defined for x86-64, arm and
> aarch64 too. The ARM and AARCH64 functions look to be completely
> redundant, and I suspect all of them could disappear if we modify the
> generic code to handle prstatusx32_t for x86-64.
Actually, there is a reason for the ARM and AARCH64 functions.
Note the followup emails too..
So it seems that with the current infrastructure we can either support
core file generation on remote (linux) targets, or core file
generation on more native targets (freebsd). Alternatively, we'd
need to use separate bfd target vectors for linux and freebsd, which
can and will cause multiple target matches.
Do we really want non-native core file generation?
Australia Development Lab, IBM