on 21/06/2010 23:44 Navdeep Parhar said the following: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 04:10:45PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: >> On Monday 21 June 2010 11:57:17 am Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> on 21/06/2010 18:43 John Baldwin said the following: >>>> np@ has a patch to gdb to fix this for kgdb. I haven't committed it as it >>>> patched gdb internals and wasn't in a kgdb-specific place, but I'm not >> sure of >>>> a better way to fix kgdb. >>> Oh, yes, section mapping is done in common gdb code. >>> Perhaps kld.c shouldn't call build_section_table, but directly call >>> bfd_map_over_sections with a custom variant of add_to_section_table? >>> Can you please share the patch? >> It was deeper level than that, I'd have to dig it up. > > I'm using this patch these days: > http://people.freebsd.org/~np/kgdb+kld+amd64.diff > > The changes to the kernel linker were not required originally. See this > for why they had to be made: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2009-November/030093.html > > The patch is quite crude and I have no idea how it behaves on other > platforms.
Thanks a lot! These are exact issues that I hit and the patches are what I think they should be, take or give. I don't think they are really crude. I will try to get them committed. Kernel linker change is good as is, I'd just like to move the zero size check before the switch statement. gdb change - I'd rather do it via kld_current_sos, kld_relocate_section_addresses. I'd like to avoid changing common gdb code for a variety of reasons. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
