> On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 08:51:11AM -0800, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>  > Ah, thanks, sorry didn't realize this.  Might be time to teach GDB a 
>  > little bit more about core files.
> 
> Err, personally, I think the current arrangement (libbfd doing the
> section work) is good -- it allows you to pull them apart with e.g.
> objcopy :-)
> 
> GDB really should be working with "bfd sections", which do not secessarily
> map 1:1 with actual sections in the file.  The .reg and .reg2 bfd sections
> are actually in one file section, even in Solaris.


True.  The abstraction is fine.  Sometimes, though, it can at least 
appear to get in the way - for instance when trying to implement code 
that writes core files.  That is outside the scope of this discussion 
though.


>  > > Yes, I know.  Those pseudo-sections are put together by libbfd.  The
>  > > number after the / is actually ((lwpid << 16) | pid).
>  > > > Hmm, definitly time to do this.
> 
> Err... gdb already deals with this properly.  As far as I can tell, anyway.


Back in '93 a 64k process table was considered huge, now, well, you know 
:-)  GDB can handle very large process id's but I'm not so sure about 
some of the interfaces.

enjoy,
Andrew