From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11472 invoked by alias); 21 Feb 2002 00:34:57 -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 11290 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2002 00:34:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Feb 2002 00:34:55 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16dhCA-0002Yd-00; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 19:34:46 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:34:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Elena Zannoni Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] ppc-linux-nat.c AltiVec regs ptrace Message-ID: <20020220193446.A9812@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <15476.1308.919907.110811@localhost.redhat.com> <20020220153946.A24439@nevyn.them.org> <15476.4080.303671.894065@localhost.redhat.com> <20020220171519.A28726@nevyn.them.org> <15476.11279.326712.932158@localhost.redhat.com> <20020220184649.B7963@nevyn.them.org> <15476.16171.455269.862123@localhost.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15476.16171.455269.862123@localhost.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00577.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 07:28:27PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote: > In case of 2.2.5 the powerpc version of the file gets installed. While > for 2.2.1 the one with the definitions for PTRACE_GETFPXREGS is installed. > > Ok then, should we support the older version or not? > If not we have two options: > > 1. if glibc gets a patch with the new PTRACE_GETVRREGS requests, then > we can add another different configuration check. > > 2. We can just rely on the run time check. Which means I have to redo > the patch again [where is that bucket]. > > Actually doing just 2 would work also with the older version, I guess. > Unless I am missing some other subtlety. Ok I'll change it. Sounds good to me. Might want to submit a patch to add GETVRREGS to libc, also, I suppose... -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer