From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B47E5386F833 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 14:48:19 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org B47E5386F833 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.193] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F3641F375; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 10:48:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb, gdbserver: remove configure check for fs_base/gs_base in user_regs_struct To: Tom Tromey , Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Cc: Simon Marchi References: <20200426212101.2432444-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <87lfmhq97o.fsf@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <1d103ec9-811e-5705-3b73-db2127eef53b@simark.ca> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 10:48:18 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87lfmhq97o.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: tl Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 14:48:30 -0000 On 2020-04-27 10:44 a.m., Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches writes: > > Simon> I recently stumbled on this code mentioning Linux kernel 2.6.25, and > Simon> thought it could be time for some spring cleaning (newer GDBs probably > Simon> don't need to supports 12-year old kernels). I then found that the > Simon> "legacy" case is probably broken anyway, which gives an even better > Simon> motivation for its removal. > > Thanks for the extensive analysis. > This seems good to me. > > Tom > Thanks, I pushed it. Simon