This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH]: Clarify the warning displayed when you debug a core file for the wrong architecture.
- From: "Mark Kettenis" <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
- To: "Jim Blandy" <jimb at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "Nitin Gupta" <ngupta at mvista dot com>, gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:51:02 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Clarify the warning displayed when you debug a core file for the wrong architecture.
- References: <456B8B19.8050403@mvista.com> <m3slg3tmyh.fsf@codesourcery.com>
>
> Nitin Gupta <ngupta@mvista.com> writes:
> > Pushing one of the old patches from Daniel into FSF.
> >
> > 2002-08-30 Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
> >
> > * corelow.c (get_core_register_section): Clarify warning.
> >
> > Index: gdb-6.3.90_20051109/gdb/corelow.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- gdb-6.3.90_20051109.orig/gdb/corelow.c 2005-07-04
> > 13:29:10.000000000 +0000
> > +++ gdb-6.3.90_20051109/gdb/corelow.c 2005-11-09 23:23:54.000000000
> > +0000
> > @@ -462,7 +462,10 @@
> > if (! section)
> > {
> > if (required)
> > + {
> > warning (_("Couldn't find %s registers in core file."),
> > human_name);
> > + warning (_("Core file may be for a different architecture.\n"));
> > + }
> > return;
> > }
>
> I don't object to this patch, but I wonder if there isn't a better
> place to do the check, where we could issue a more informative
> message.
>
> Does this warning ever come about when the core file is *not* of a
> different architecture? I'd assume not, since the caller indicated
> that the section in question is required.
>
> (Sorry if this patch has been discussed before --- I couldn't find the
> thread in the archives.)
I don't like the change. It's replacing a factual statement with a
specualtion.