Re: [robertl@sco.com: threads RH6/Sparc vs. GDB]

[Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 12:42:23PM -0500, Jim Kingdon wrote:
> > From what I recall, sys/ptrace.h and one of the GDB headers were each
> > trying to outsmart the other.
> 
> No, it is two system headers.  /usr/include/asm-sparc/ptrace.h
> (included via a dizzying cascade of includes from
> /usr/include/signal.h) and /usr/include/sys/ptrace.h.  The former
> contains "#define PTRACE_GETREGS 12" and the latter has an enum which
> contains "PTRACE_GETREGS = 12".
> 
> DaveM, Jakub, let's get this fixed.  We've been kludging around it in
> GDB long enough.

I hope this is already fixed, at least I hacked on it. But it is in 2.3.*
kernel headers and glibc 2.1.90 CVS, but I can backport it if needed.

Cheers,
    Jakub
___________________________________________________________________
Jakub Jelinek | jakub@redhat.com | http://sunsite.mff.cuni.cz/~jj
Linux version 2.3.18 on a sparc64 machine (1343.49 BogoMips)
___________________________________________________________________
From shebs@cygnus.com Mon Nov 01 13:27:00 1999
From: Stan Shebs <shebs@cygnus.com>
To: tromey@cygnus.com
Cc: tromey@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Patch: --enable-profiling
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 13:27:00 -0000
Message-id: <199911012127.NAA17713@andros.cygnus.com>
References: <199910311504.HAA00905@ferrule.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 1999-q4/msg00141.html
Content-length: 1039

   Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 07:04:57 -0800 (PST)
   From: Tom Tromey <tromey@cygnus.com>

   Stan> BTW, will this work with djgpp and/or cygwin?  What will happen
   Stan> if you try to configure on those with --enabling-profiling?

   It might work or it might not.  I don't know.  My theory is that
   profiling gdb is a maintainer thing, and if somebody uses
   --enable-profiling and it doesn't build, they had better know what
   they are doing anyway.  We can always add tests for functions later.
   I could add them now if it is important; it is easy enough to do.
   Ordinarily I'm zealous about portability, but in this case I don't
   think it matters that much.

If it's not going to work, or as cgf suggests, it won't be very
interesting, it's worth just having a note in the docs to that effect.
Internals manual only is sufficient.  Even a knowledgeable person,
using this for the first time, will be hard-pressed to know whether
the failure to build/run is a known limitation, or something wrong in
the setup.

								Stan