From: Lei Wen <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] libgcore: fix get notesize calculation Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:46:13 -0700
> Hi HATAYAMA, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: HATAYAMA Daisuke [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:45 AM >> To: Lei Wen >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] libgcore: fix get notesize calculation >> >> >> From: Lei Wen <[email protected]> >> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] libgcore: fix get notesize calculation >> Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:44:14 -0800 >> > > Opps, that is my fault, thanks for correcting. > I'm ok with the change. > I see. >> >> Furthermore, these days I'm beginning with the current design of gcore >> command is too large to maintain. I guess most users of this command >> requires only a small part of the features currently gcore command >> provides. In other words, they are satisfied only with seeing memory >> contents and backtrace using gdb. They don't need acurate restoration >> of register values. For the other direction, porting kernel source >> code directly, such as elf_core_dump() and regset interface, itself >> might be too large. I will perhaps rewrite gcore command entirely >> compactly. Please keep it mind. > > Actually we think it is vital to also keep the register set extract out to > analyze the user space application, since combining the registers and > assembler code, we could get full view of what is happening when the fatal > signal happens, like what the local variable content is then. Just backtrace > is not enough... > > Could we keep such feature? > Yes, I also think there's such requirement. What I want to keep now are memory part, general registers that are corresponding to REGSET_GENERAL and core part of NT_PRSTATUS, NT_PRPSINFO and NT_AUXV. I don't schedule this development and I don't know when I will do it. So please just keep it mind. Thanks. HATAYAMA, Daisuke -- Crash-utility mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
