Re: [patch] thread-aware coredumps, 2.5.43-C3

From: Mark Gross (
Date: Sat Oct 19 2002 - 13:42:51 EST

On Saturday 19 October 2002 06:20 am, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Therefore, I don't think we should "contaminate" our source with
> backwards compatibility hacks.

I agree, lets get the kernel and gdb to match up as soon as possible.

When do you think GDB get these 2 changes (section ID for extended floating
point sections and that namesz == 5 test) in?

< snip >

> In the light of the discussion above, I don't think Ingo's patch
> should change NT_FPXREG/NT_PRFPXREG from 20 to 0x46e62b7f (and the
> name shouldn't be changed either I think). We should change it in
> GDB/BFD instead from 0x46e62b7f. The value 20 is already publically
> available in the current kernel headers and glibc headers. What are
> your feelings about that, Ingo?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 23 2002 - 22:00:47 EST