From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27271 invoked by alias); 21 Feb 2002 00:28:53 -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 27027 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2002 00:28:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Feb 2002 00:28:50 -0000 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (cse.cygnus.com [205.180.230.236]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA15198; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:28:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id E2AAC11403; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 19:28:27 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15476.16171.455269.862123@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:28:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] ppc-linux-nat.c AltiVec regs ptrace In-Reply-To: <20020220184649.B7963@nevyn.them.org> References: <15476.1308.919907.110811@localhost.redhat.com> <20020220153946.A24439@nevyn.them.org> <15476.4080.303671.894065@localhost.redhat.com> <20020220171519.A28726@nevyn.them.org> <15476.11279.326712.932158@localhost.redhat.com> <20020220184649.B7963@nevyn.them.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.00 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00576.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 06:06:55PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote: > > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > > I'm confused. > > > > Yeah, you are not the only one. > > > > > > > > On i386, glibc defines PTRACE_GETFPXREGS. On PowerPC, in current FSF > > > glibc, sys/ptrace.h does not define anything along these lines at all. > > > > OK, I have downloaded glibc 2.2.5, and sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/ptrace.h > > defines PTRACE_GETFPXREGS. > > > > Then on my system, I have /usr/include/sys/ptrace.h which also defines it. > > But I think I have an older version of glibc installed. > > > > What I am not understanding is where the installed file comes from, is > > it the same as sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/ptrace.h? > > The way the glibc build process works is a mess. Every target has a > list of sysdep directories. The first matching file is installed. In > this case, it is sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/powerpc/sys/ptrace.h. When > looking for a file in the glibc source, I recommend always getting a > list of all files by that name first. > Ohhh, thanks! Ok, now I understand where the file comes from. I have glibc-2.2.1 installed: $ find . -name ptrace.h ./sysdeps/generic/sys/ptrace.h ./sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/alpha/alpha/ptrace.h ./sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/sys/ptrace.h ./sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc/sys/ptrace.h ./sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/ptrace.h While in the 2.2.5 sources: $ !find find . -name ptrace.h ./sysdeps/generic/sys/ptrace.h ./sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/alpha/alpha/ptrace.h ./sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/ia64/sys/ptrace.h ./sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/powerpc/sys/ptrace.h ./sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/sys/ptrace.h ./sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc/sys/ptrace.h ./sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/ptrace.h In case of 2.2.5 the powerpc version of the file gets installed. While for 2.2.1 the one with the definitions for PTRACE_GETFPXREGS is installed. Ok then, should we support the older version or not? If not we have two options: 1. if glibc gets a patch with the new PTRACE_GETVRREGS requests, then we can add another different configuration check. 2. We can just rely on the run time check. Which means I have to redo the patch again [where is that bucket]. Actually doing just 2 would work also with the older version, I guess. Unless I am missing some other subtlety. Ok I'll change it. Elena