Re: Are ppc*_elf_write_core_note Os-specific?

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Alan Modra <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:48:19AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
>> PowerPC64 glibc even now doesn't defing prstatus32_t.  :-(  It seems
>> only sparc and s390 do so.  So PowerPC would need a
>> hosts/powerpc-linux.h to define them for Linux, with some configury
>> changes, like hosts/x86-64linux.h does for x86-64 Linux.  I'll see
>> about making those changes.
>>
>> Note that elf_backend_write_core_note is defined for x86-64, arm and
>> aarch64 too.  The ARM and AARCH64 functions look to be completely
>> redundant, and I suspect all of them could disappear if we modify the
>> generic code to handle prstatusx32_t for x86-64.
>
> Actually, there is a reason for the ARM and AARCH64 functions.
> See https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-10/msg00202.html
> Note the followup emails too..
>
> So it seems that with the current infrastructure we can either support
> core file generation on remote (linux) targets, or core file
> generation on more native targets (freebsd).  Alternatively, we'd
> need to use separate bfd target vectors for linux and freebsd, which
> can and will cause multiple target matches.
>
> Do we really want non-native core file generation?
>

Any changes shouldn't introduce regressions.  I don't see why
elf_backend_write_core_note can't handle all targets BFD supports
since note_type is unique to each OS.  BFD just needs to provide
proper types independent of host header files, similar to
hosts/x86-64linux.h.

-- 
H.J.