This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA]: Java Inferior Call Take 2
- From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>, Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 16:16:01 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFA]: Java Inferior Call Take 2
- References: <20040617030603.GC23443@nevyn.them.org><40D20494.2020608@redhat.com><20040619235857.GA18759@nevyn.them.org><16598.64375.217285.743094@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com><16601.25623.949217.642524@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com><20040623134742.GA24612@nevyn.them.org><40D9FC3B.3030700@redhat.com><20040623230138.GA6426@nevyn.them.org><40EB1DDD.4070603@redhat.com><4105604A.6030302@redhat.com><20040726194953.GA27001@nevyn.them.org><16654.5193.518989.691842@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com>
Andrew Haley writes:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:49:30PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> > > Ping.
> >
> > I was waiting for Andrew to try fixing up gcj so that we could avoid
> > the method name problem. Andrew, are you going to have time to do
> > that, or should we pursue the hack for now after all? I'd much rather
> > it be fixed.
>
> Sorry Daniel, I've been away. You are right: it should be fixed in
> gcc. I will do this as soon as I get stuff sorted out.
Okay, I've made a patch but I'm not sure it's what you want.
This is a snippet from a typical file:
.long 0x9ca | .long 0x851
.byte 0x1 .byte 0x1
.string "java.lang.Class.forName(java.lang.String)" | .string "forName"
.byte 0x3 .byte 0x3
Is that what you want? I've only made the change for method names;
field names are as before.
Andrew.