Re: [wip] "info auxv"

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>]

> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 06:16:23PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> > This work-in-progress is more questions than answers.
> >
> > - Common code in "procfs.c" (tested) and "inftarg.c"
> > It makes me wonder if the native inferior code should be re-arranged 
> > (has this come up before?).
> >
> > - The new files "auxv.[hc]" for parsing the file.
> > Perhaphs it belongs in "procfs.c" but that gets me back to the first 
> > question - could the native inferior code be better structured?
>
>
> > +      switch (auxv.type)
> > +	{
> > +	case AT_NULL:
> > +	  name = "End of vector";
> > +	  break;
>
>
> Just a comment - as Roland said,

Ref: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-10/msg00265.html

> the values in "elf/common.h" are not
> authoritive, and I don't even think they match Solaris?  Should this be
> in common code?

Note the "????" in that output:
2000 ???                            0x9f4
Adding some sort of table is a todo item.

I'm mainly worried about the "auxv.h" interface.  For instance, how to 
provide a generic mechanism for fetching the entry-point address. 
Should "auxv.h" "define an OS independant set of enums and then map that 
onto the real numbers" (ala signals), or assume AT_ENTRY is constant 
across platforms (it actually is), or export an 
auxv_entry_point_address() and handle it all internally.

Andrew