This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Are ppc*_elf_write_core_note Os-specific?
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>, 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 10:26:48 +0000
- 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> <20160119031407 dot GD17028 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org>
On 01/19/2016 03:14 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> 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.
> See https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-10/msg00202.html
> 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?
Yes. IMO, all bfd core file generation and reading should be
made independent of host headers.