From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 19 17:10:41 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5B2116A4CE; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:10:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.BAYAREA.NET [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4883E43D46; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:10:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6JHAfZR022127; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:10:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@ns1.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i6JHAfZO022126; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:10:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:10:41 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Scott Long Message-ID: <20040719171041.GA22048@ns1.xcllnt.net> References: <200407182028.i6IKS7Su002490@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040719034245.C32601@pooker.samsco.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040719034245.C32601@pooker.samsco.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern imgact_elf.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:10:41 -0000 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