This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [rfa] Add bfd_runtime

From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
Cc: ian at wasabisystems dot com, ac131313 at redhat dot com, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:56:26 -0400
Subject: Re: [rfa] Add bfd_runtime
References: <40E1FF7A.10405@redhat.com> <m3smcdajcg.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <40E2CB85.2030607@redhat.com> <m33c4d6rki.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <40EAAF53.8070001@redhat.com> <m3hdsc1vij.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <414F63A3.2050009@redhat.com> <m3acvkzbff.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <200409210138.i8L1c0HA026974@greed.delorie.com>

[back to this]

My understanding is that the runtime images which you are talking
about are just like object files.

Why wouldn't an in-memory execution image be a corefile type?  It
can't be *that* different than an on-disk execution image.  GDB treats
the two similarly, bfd should too.

A corefile may contain, in one of its segments, an in-memory image. A corefile doesn't contain recoverable debug sections, an in-memory image is expected to.

And, as a bonus, it's actually in core! ;-)

Andrew

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]