On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:03:43 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-02-22 at 22:08 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > jankratochvil/devmem
>
> The name, the subject and some of the comments talks about /dev.
> But I assume this is really about /proc?
Right, there isn't anything related to "dev"
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:56:23 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> - Could we reuse dwfl_pid () instead of adding another pid concept to
> struct Dwfl_Module? Then a user could just use dwfl_linux_proc_attach
> which might also help us get into the ptrace attach state if needed
> for reading /proc/PI
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:30:55 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> We certainly shouldn't abort on bad data!
> But do we even need to continue at this point?
>
> return result; means we will keep searching through the section table,
> which apparently is busted anyway. So I think it makes sense to cleanup
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:12:04 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> I rather not extend the libelf interface if possible. The various libelf
> implementations are already a little diverged. Lets not unnecessarily
> make the divergence even bigger.
I was aware of this issue but I had no other idea.
> If p
