From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13870 invoked by alias); 21 Feb 2002 04:10:05 -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 13764 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2002 04:09:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Feb 2002 04:09:57 -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 UAA00497; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:09:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 40E2411403; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:09:27 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15476.29431.108541.369172@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:10:00 -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: <20020220215702.B14034@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> <15476.16171.455269.862123@localhost.redhat.com> <20020220193446.A9812@nevyn.them.org> <15476.22212.358982.6179@localhost.redhat.com> <20020220215702.B14034@nevyn.them.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.00 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00585.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 09:09:08PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote: > > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 07:28:27PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > Sounds good to me. Might want to submit a patch to add GETVRREGS to > > > libc, also, I suppose... > > > > Yes, it's probably better. > > > > Here is a new patch. > > > > 2002-02-20 Elena Zannoni > > > > * ppc-linux-nat.c (PTRACE_GETVRREGS, PTRACE_SETVRREGS): Define. > > I like this much better, thank you! > > My only concern is that you'll have a problem when glibc does define > them; might want to conditionally define these. Oh, yes, true. Will do when I check it in. Thanks for your help. Elena > > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University > MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer