This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Add extra 'info os' information types for Linux (trunk and 7.4)
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink dot net>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:03:47 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add extra 'info os' information types for Linux (trunk and 7.4)
- References: <4E95DC58.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4ECD3496.email@example.com> <4EF9497B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <E1RfQXH-0004RB-1H@fencepost.gnu.org> <4EFA54FF.email@example.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:30:07 -0800
> From: Stan Shebs <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> CC: email@example.com
> I think the answer is that there would be few if any "info os"
> subcommands that would be genuinely common to all operating systems that
> GDB supports; embedded OSes may not even have a well-defined concept of
> processes. On the other hand, one could argue that anything that is not
> totally general should be given a OS-specific subcommand, a la "info dos".
But "info dos" is not more OS-specific than the commands suggested
> And although the patch at hand consists of implementations for Linux, I
> don't think any of the types of data are truly Linux-only; the IPC types
> are common to all System V inheritors for instance, and even the
> seemingly-Linux concept of loadable kernel modules now has a BSD
> equivalent. By comparison, "info dos" has subcommands like "gdt"
> (global descriptor table) that are not meaningful for any other kind of OS.
Any modern system that runs on x86 will have a GDT, it's just that
most don't let you access it easily. So I really don't see a
fundamental difference here.