This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC/RFA] new gdbarch method: NAME_OF_MALLOC
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at ges dot redhat dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at gnat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:44:46 -0400
- Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] new gdbarch method: NAME_OF_MALLOC
- References: <20020912200909.GN932@gnat.com>
Following the disussion around the fact that the name of the function
used to allocate some memory in the inferior is hard-coded to "malloc"
(http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-09/msg00079.html),
here is a proposed addition to the architecture vector.
Is it the right thing to do to handle the interix case where the
malloc function should be "_malloc"? Is "NAME_OF_MALLOC" ok, or would
we prefer a different name?
[No one appears to have come up with a better name :-)]
Also, I did not find much documentation on each field for the line I
added in gdbarch.sh. So I kind of reversed engineered it by reading
the script code. So if you find anything I missed, this might explain
it...
2002-09-12 Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com>
* gdbarch.sh (NAME_OF_MALLOC): New variable in the architecture
vector. Will be useful for Interix.
* gdbarch.h, gdbarch.c: Regenerate.
* valops.c (value_allocate_space_in_inferior): Replace hard-coded
name of the malloc function by NAME_OF_MALLOC.
Ok to apply?
Index: gdbarch.sh
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/gdbarch.sh,v
retrieving revision 1.159
diff -c -3 -p -r1.159 gdbarch.sh
*** gdbarch.sh 6 Sep 2002 20:17:40 -0000 1.159
--- gdbarch.sh 12 Sep 2002 19:57:06 -0000
*************** m::CONSTRUCT_INFERIOR_ARGUMENTS:char *:c
*** 660,665 ****
--- 660,666 ----
F:2:DWARF2_BUILD_FRAME_INFO:void:dwarf2_build_frame_info:struct objfile *objfile:objfile:::0
f:2:ELF_MAKE_MSYMBOL_SPECIAL:void:elf_make_msymbol_special:asymbol *sym, struct minimal_symbol *msym:sym, msym:::default_elf_make_msymbol_special::0
f:2:COFF_MAKE_MSYMBOL_SPECIAL:void:coff_make_msymbol_special:int val, struct minimal_symbol *msym:val, msym:::default_coff_make_msymbol_special::0
+ v::NAME_OF_MALLOC:char *:name_of_malloc::::"malloc":"malloc"::0
Can ``const char *'' be used? I think you'll just need to tweak the
function signature for find_function_in_inferior(). If you need to
tweak more, yell! :-)
doc/gdbint.texinfo will need a separate patch.
Andrew