Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 12:53:51 -0400
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
To: Egor Duda <deo AT logos-m DOT ru>
Cc: cygwin-developers <cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Subject: Re: new core files
Message-ID: <19990510125351.A1081@cygnus.com>
References: <13867 DOT 990510 AT logos-m DOT ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.3i
In-Reply-To: <13867.990510@logos-m.ru>; from Egor Duda on Mon, May 10, 1999 at 08:48:38PM +0400

On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 08:48:38PM +0400, Egor Duda wrote:
>Hi!
>
>May 8 1999, Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com> wrote:
>
> CF> I should point out that the subject of core dumps was recently raised
> CF> in some gdb discusions.  There seems to be a general consensus that
> CF> for targets, like cygwin, which don't support a native core dump
> CF> format, that the target should use the ELF core dump format.  It seems
> CF> to be the most flexible format for this type of thing.
>
>I've  tried  to  do it using bfd. It works ok, i've only needed to add
>new  note  section type to store CONTEXT structure and function to bfd
>code  to  pass it to gdb. But it makes cygwin (not cygwin1.dll itself,
>but "core-dumper" tool) dependent on bfd. is it ok?

That should be fine.  I have no problem with making a cygwin tool dependent
on bfd.

I am amazed that you're proceeding so quickly on this!

-chris