From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29135 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2003 00:01:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29128 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2003 00:01:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 14 Feb 2003 00:01:33 -0000 Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA17671; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:50:24 -0500 Received: from dash ([192.168.20.26]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA19689; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 19:01:31 -0500 Message-ID: <002b01c2d3bc$945a6660$2a00a8c0@dash> From: "Kris Warkentin" To: "Kris Warkentin" , "Mark Kettenis" Cc: , References: <1c3601c2cbc1$72eac3b0$0202040a@catdog> <3E40387D.50001@redhat.com> <008f01c2ce4b$427295f0$2a00a8c0@dash> <86lm0r3nha.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <01f301c2d2e4$afb31200$0202040a@catdog> <200302132220.h1DMKBxU000786@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <021601c2d3af$562e07f0$0202040a@catdog> <200302132252.h1DMqROn009520@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <001901c2d3bb$bea625e0$2a00a8c0@dash> Subject: Re: patch to add QNX NTO i386 support Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:01:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00321.txt.bz2 > > > > Huh? Are you saying that, even though you don't mention tm-nto.h in > > any of the Makefile-fragments you're adding, you need the file to > > build GDB? > > Actually, NAT_FILE is nm-nto.h. I was quite confused when I eliminated > NAT_FILE from nto.mh and all of a sudden couldn't build a native gdb > anymore. If you look at the configure script, you'll see that if NAT_FILE > isn't defined, you never build a native gdb. So I went 'touch nto.mh' and > added it to nto.mh. I expect it will eventually be an empty file (once I > get rid of the single define in it). Oh...I didn't read that correctly. You're right. There is a tm-nto.h there. How the heck did that happen? I must have copied something incorrectly. Tomorrow when I'm back to work I'll have to figure out what I was doing. I've been moving so much stuff around that I must have slipped somewhere. Good eyes. cheers, Kris