This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Kill SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING
- From: "David S. Miller" <davem at redhat dot com>
- To: kevinb at redhat dot com
- Cc: msnyder at redhat dot com, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Kill SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING
- References: <3CC59E0A.D9572914@redhat.com><email@example.com><1020423191000.ZM9800@localhost.localdomain>
From: Kevin Buettner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:10:00 -0700
I'm beginning to remember more about this now. Contrary to my previous
statements in this thread, I don't think we really lose the ability to
have symbols at address 0. We can still have them, but it's more work
to figure out that they're at zero because the minimal symbols will be
consulted to make the determination.
If this were not the case, we could conditionalize the code with
a gdbarch boolean value that would make the code work properly in
the presence of symbols at address zero.
This all depends upon the final analysis of whether my suggested
change does, or does not actually take away the capability to have
symbols at address zero.