This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 5/5] set/show code-cache NEWS and doc
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 09:06:11 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] set/show code-cache NEWS and doc
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1382516855-32218-1-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <1382516855-32218-6-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <83sivshuux dot fsf at gnu dot org> <5268D967 dot 2000703 at codesourcery dot com> <837gd2itkj dot fsf at gnu dot org> <526A3B07 dot 1020607 at codesourcery dot com> <83ob6dhdpt dot fsf at gnu dot org> <52744600 dot 9020205 at codesourcery dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 08:23:28 +0800
> From: Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>
> CC: <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
>
> On 10/25/2013 06:00 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> How about "executable code"?
> > I would suggest "code section", unless you think that is incorrect for
> > some reason.
>
> GDB can also access code generated by JIT, but they are not from "code
> section". On the other hand, "read code section" usually means "read
> code section in executable file" rather than "read code section in live
> inferior".
I'm also OK with "code segment", if you think it's more accurate.
"Executable code" is too vague to be helpful, IMO.