Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:10:41 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern imgact_elf.c Message-ID: <20040719171041.GA22048@ns1.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20040719034245.C32601@pooker.samsco.org> References: <200407182028.i6IKS7Su002490@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040719034245.C32601@pooker.samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:45:39AM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > > Log: > > After maintaining previous behaviour in writing out the core notes, it's > > time now to break with the past: do not write the PID in the first note. > > I've seen concern (maybe in private email, can't check at the moment) > recently that loosing the PID info is undesirable. Is there any way that > it can be included again, maybe in something other than a PRSTATUS object? Ideally you want one note that describes the process as a whole (let's call it a P-note for now) and as many notes as there were kernel threads for the process (let's call such notes T-notes). A P-note would typically hold the PID. T-notes typically hold register contents, as well as LWPIDs. Creating a core file with P-notes and T-notes is easy enough. getting binutils to grok them is non-trivial, not to mention that gdb needs to be able to get to the information, which is as non-trivial as binutils extracting it from the core file. So, introducing new notes is a major effort. Extending existing notes is a major effort. Not because it's hard to understand a new note, or read a new field from a note, but because it's hard to have binutils save the information and gdb use the saved information. You pretty much have to redesign interfaces and I'm not touching that... -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040719171041.GA22048>