Re: PATCH: Provde a pid to filename conversion for NetBSD

["Mark Kettenis" <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

>  On Friday 15 December 2006 16:37, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 04:23:30PM +0000, Nick Hudson wrote:
> > > > 2006-11-30  Nick Hudson  <skrll@netbsd.org>
> > > >
> > > >         * i386nbsd-nat.c: Include "nbsd-nat.h".
> > > >         (_initialize_i386nbsd_nat): Update target vector to use
> > > >         nbsd_pid_to_exec_file.
> > > >
> > > >         * config/i386/nbsdelf.mh (NATDEPFILES): Add nbsd-nat.o
> > > >
> > > >         * nbsd-nat.c: New file.
> > > >         * nbsd-nat.h: New file.
> > > >         * Makefile.in (ALLDEPFILES): Add nbsd-nat.c.
> > > >         (nbsd_nat_h): New variable.
> > > >         (nbsd-nat.o): New dependency.
> > >
> > > What needs to happen for this to go in?
> >
> > Someone needs to review it.  I was hoping that someone who actually
> > used NetBSD would speak up :-)  If no one does, I'll do it myself.
>
>  I sent Jason Thorpe (current NetBSD maintainer) an email, but got not
>  response. :(

Reasoning that NetBSD and OpenBSD are similar enough, I suppose I can do
it.  You're origional diff broke OpenBSD/i386 support, since it re-used
the NetBSD/i386 native code, but I've solved that by moving some code
from i386nbsd-nat.c to i386obsd-nat.c.  If I ever get to implement this
for OpenBSD it will not use /proc, and I had some other reasons to make
the seperation anyway.  Anyway, your diff looks pretty good, except for
some minor nits:

* Always include "defs.h" first.

* The FSF lawyers have apparently changed their mind again, and we should
  use Copyright (C) again.

* Make sure the dependencies in Makefile.in are up to date; you forgot to
  add a dependency rule for nbsd-nat.o.

I'll fix those when I commit the diff.

However, before I can do that, I need to be sure you've got an FSF
copyright assignment for GDB in place.  Or Daniel, do you think there
is not enough origional code here to warrant one?

> > It looks generally fine.  Is this going to work for every NetBSD
> > platform?  Should it be added to all of them, rather than just i386?
> > Looks like GDB supports 11.
>
>  I have diffs to add support to all other NetBSD platforms which I
>  committed to
>  the NetBSD tree recently. I'll send those after this one goes in.

Ah, that'd be good.  Perhaps that means that a few more NetBSD/OpenBSD
seperation diffs are needed, but that's not a big problem.

>  Thanks,
>  Nick