This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Display libc function names instead of address ?
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Victor STINNER <victor dot stinner at haypocalc dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, ezannoni at redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:44:47 +0200
- Subject: Re: Display libc function names instead of address ?
- References: <1118892960.12713.5.camel@haypopc> <20050616044313.GA5950@nevyn.them.org> <1118934045.2827.4.camel@haypopc> <20050616151934.GA11296@nevyn.them.org> <1118936759.24041.23.camel@haypopc> <20050616162605.GA32580@nevyn.them.org>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:26:05 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 05:45:59PM +0200, Victor STINNER wrote:
> > Le jeudi 16 juin 2005 à 11:19 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz a écrit :
> > > Thanks for checking! That's output from objdump, right? It doesn't
> > > seem to work for me in GDB, just in objdump. But perhaps I can figure
> > > out where to wire it in.
> >
> > Yep, it's in objdump. I think that you just have to update bfd and
> > opcodes libraries, no ?
>
> No - GDB also needs a change.
>
> This has been on my todo list for months, ever since objdump gained
> support. Here's an implementation - the patch applies to GDB CVS.
> Elena, is this patch OK?
>
> Tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu. It leaves a stray if (1) to minimize the
> size of the diff; I would remove that as an obvious followup.
Will this change modify what GDB displays in response to some command?
If so, please see whether something in the manual needs a suitable
change as well.
TIA