Re: [RFA] ppc-linux-nat.c AltiVec regs ptrace

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 06:06:55PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
>  > I'm confused.
> 
> Yeah, you are not the only one.
> 
>  > 
>  > On i386, glibc defines PTRACE_GETFPXREGS.  On PowerPC, in current FSF
>  > glibc, sys/ptrace.h does not define anything along these lines at all. 
> 
> OK, I have downloaded glibc 2.2.5, and sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/ptrace.h
> defines PTRACE_GETFPXREGS.
> 
> Then on my system, I have /usr/include/sys/ptrace.h which also defines it.
> But I think I have an older version of glibc installed.
> 
> What I am not understanding is where the installed file comes from, is
> it the same as sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/ptrace.h?

The way the glibc build process works is a mess.  Every target has a
list of sysdep directories.  The first matching file is installed.  In
this case, it is sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/powerpc/sys/ptrace.h.  When
looking for a file in the glibc source, I recommend always getting a
list of all files by that name first.

>  > If there are outstanding patches to glibc, which defines
>  > PTRACE_GETFPXREGS on PowerPC, then they are still mutable.  They should
>  > be updated to a reasonable value.
>  > 
> 
> I think that rather than oustanding patches we may have older versions.
> 
> I see that in glibc2.2.5 the file
> sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/powerpc/sys/ptrace.h
> doesn't use the values 18 and 19.
> 
> If I determine that the version of glibc I have used is obsolete, then
> I can clean that up. Let me have a look.

Hopefully I've clarified this a little.  And you seem to have found the
file in question.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer