From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Lipe To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@cygnus.com Subject: Re: 4.17.87 patch SVR5 Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 12:41:00 -0000 Message-id: <19990326144106.J185@rjlhome.sco.com> References: <19990326130914.G185@rjlhome.sco.com> <199903262021.MAA07936@andros.cygnus.com> <199903262021.MAA07936@andros.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-03/msg00074.html > Much better. Missed it by only one line this time. :-) > Ah ha, you've been holding out on me, you dirty software hoarder. :-) :-) I offer exhibit A in which it is clearly shown the defendant is not a hoarder and has offered this very patch before: http://www.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/1999-Mar/0065.html > I'm adding that to the repository now. Thank you. > In exchange for the added line The shame of the bloat was killing me. :-) > I collapsed the two 4.2 configs: > > i[3456]86-*-sysv4.2MP) gdb_target=i386v42mp ;; > i[3456]86-*-sysv4.2uw2*) gdb_target=i386v42mp ;; > > to > > i[3456]86-*-sysv4.2*) gdb_target=i386v42mp ;; > > I assume this is a plausible thing to do, but I'll go along with people > who know more about the minutiae of SCO/Unixware configs. Executive summary: Looks fine to me. I don't know *what* had been going on with this particular config in various GNU configure mechanisms. As I remember history (and I could be wrong) on X86 the only commercially available SVR4.2 product was UnixWare and it was available only in MP version, but did run on a uni. UW1* and UW2* were both MP-capable but I think they did differ in how they represented /proc. So why these were ever differentiated to GDB in this way utterly escapes me. This was also indirectly responsible for me wandering around inside procfs for completely too long when I overrode --host and got the "wrong" case on MP and therefor got the wrong /proc handling. So I think you're doing the world a favor in collapsing the above *if* config.guess doesn't outsmart us on that target. Perhaps it all predates standardized config.guess schemes and different packages just picked different representations. I don't know. I didn't closely follow UW during that era. Rodney, can you confirm this doesn't hose UW2? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Lipe To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@cygnus.com Subject: Re: 4.17.87 patch SVR5 Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 00:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: <19990326144106.J185@rjlhome.sco.com> References: <19990326130914.G185@rjlhome.sco.com> <199903262021.MAA07936@andros.cygnus.com> <199903262021.MAA07936@andros.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-q1/msg00128.html Message-ID: <19990401000000.uVGhtlYUMEs5Efdl_ZjGIWPScLvjXk8TZFVKnDbYVVA@z> > Much better. Missed it by only one line this time. :-) > Ah ha, you've been holding out on me, you dirty software hoarder. :-) :-) I offer exhibit A in which it is clearly shown the defendant is not a hoarder and has offered this very patch before: http://www.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/1999-Mar/0065.html > I'm adding that to the repository now. Thank you. > In exchange for the added line The shame of the bloat was killing me. :-) > I collapsed the two 4.2 configs: > > i[3456]86-*-sysv4.2MP) gdb_target=i386v42mp ;; > i[3456]86-*-sysv4.2uw2*) gdb_target=i386v42mp ;; > > to > > i[3456]86-*-sysv4.2*) gdb_target=i386v42mp ;; > > I assume this is a plausible thing to do, but I'll go along with people > who know more about the minutiae of SCO/Unixware configs. Executive summary: Looks fine to me. I don't know *what* had been going on with this particular config in various GNU configure mechanisms. As I remember history (and I could be wrong) on X86 the only commercially available SVR4.2 product was UnixWare and it was available only in MP version, but did run on a uni. UW1* and UW2* were both MP-capable but I think they did differ in how they represented /proc. So why these were ever differentiated to GDB in this way utterly escapes me. This was also indirectly responsible for me wandering around inside procfs for completely too long when I overrode --host and got the "wrong" case on MP and therefor got the wrong /proc handling. So I think you're doing the world a favor in collapsing the above *if* config.guess doesn't outsmart us on that target. Perhaps it all predates standardized config.guess schemes and different packages just picked different representations. I don't know. I didn't closely follow UW during that era. Rodney, can you confirm this doesn't hose UW2?