)]}'
{
  "commit": "ea6ec00ff4520895735e4913cb90c933c7296f04",
  "tree": "bb1f7135313068772df075070e991c96c402fb4d",
  "parents": [
    "d048eee2910878bf46f333f2fdc8ef940bd1638e"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "Andrew Burgess",
    "email": "aburgess@redhat.com",
    "time": "Fri Jul 25 19:51:58 2025 +0100"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "Andrew Burgess",
    "email": "aburgess@redhat.com",
    "time": "Thu Aug 14 16:06:47 2025 +0100"
  },
  "message": "bfd: support for NT_386_TLS notes\n\nIn a later commit I\u0027d like to add support to GDB for including the\nNT_386_TLS note in the core files that GDB creates (using \u0027gcore\u0027\ncommand).\n\nTo achieve this we need some standard boilerplate code added to bfd.\n\nThe only part of this patch which I think needs consideration is the\nname I selected for the pseudo section to hold the note contents when\na core file is loaded.  I chose \u0027.reg-i386-tls\u0027.  The \u0027.reg\u0027 prefix is\nthe standard used by most other pseudo sections, and the \u0027-i386-tls\u0027\nsuffix seemed to match the note name, though I added the \u0027i\u0027 to\n\u0027i386\u0027, instead of just using \u0027.reg-386-tls\u0027.  I thought \u0027i386\u0027 seemed\nclearer.\n\nThere\u0027s no test included here, but when I merge the NT_386_TLS\ncreation to GDB it will depend on this and act as a test.  I plan to\npost that work to the GDB list once this patch is merged.\n",
  "tree_diff": [
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "f24342cb029a8ae243ef506a7b0ee83051892be9",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "bfd/elf-bfd.h",
      "new_id": "accdd6d41a8a7c99ea277321a2d00bcef0cff799",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "bfd/elf-bfd.h"
    },
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "1b2e331eaa8fa3ba4d45417f1b49578a6f798256",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "bfd/elf.c",
      "new_id": "4f6bcde236545b20fabd5c2a8ae6b5d0c16a7e8d",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "bfd/elf.c"
    }
  ]
}