From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31899 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2002 14:25:17 -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 31870 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2002 14:25:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Jan 2002 14:25:15 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id OAA16589; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:25:13 GMT Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma016105; Wed, 9 Jan 02 14:24:46 GMT Received: from cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24412; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:24:45 GMT Received: from sun18.cambridge.arm.com (sun18.cambridge.arm.com [172.16.2.18]) by cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26545; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:24:44 GMT Message-Id: <200201091424.OAA26545@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Eli Zaretskii cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Organization: ARM Ltd. X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd) X-Fax: +44 1223 400410 X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ. X-Url: http://www.arm.com/ Subject: Re: Patch for building gdb on arm-netbsd In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:14:34 +0200." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 06:25:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00170.txt.bz2 > > On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > > The following patch is needed to enable building of gdb on arm-netbsd. > > The definition of IN_SIGTRAMP tests NAME for being NULL and if not calls > > STREQ to compare the strings. > > Nitpicking: Elena will probably be very happy if you toss STREQ and use > strcmp instead. Since it's only a nit, I think I'll leave that issue for now. What is most important at this time is to get the ARM code multi-arched (I suspect that whole function will have to be re-written anyway -- I think it's part of one of the deprecated frame calls). R.