From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12824 invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2002 20:38:07 -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 12816 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2002 20:38:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 2002 20:38:06 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17hcEx-0007Gd-00; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:38:07 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17hcFY-0003as-00; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:38:44 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:38:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Jason R Thorpe , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Don't complain about unknown OSABI Message-ID: <20020821203844.GA13786@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Jason R Thorpe , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3D5FCE6A.9080308@ges.redhat.com> <20020819161543.GA10137@nevyn.them.org> <3D61792B.1020708@ges.redhat.com> <20020820015542.GA12371@nevyn.them.org> <3D626854.1040500@ges.redhat.com> <20020820161127.GA26026@nevyn.them.org> <3D63C7FD.6070009@ges.redhat.com> <20020821170838.GA27249@nevyn.them.org> <20020821101107.C17339@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> <3D63F78C.4050001@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D63F78C.4050001@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00669.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 04:26:52PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 01:08:39PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > > Trying to code for edge cases that can't exist yet leads to sloppiness, > > > in my opinion. Those cases should be dealt with when we have the means > > > to build a GDB supporting more than one processor family, and someone > > > adds per-architecture OS/ABIs. > > A patch to include more than one architecture into a single gdb was > posted a year ago :-) I know. I observe that it isn't in yet, either. > >FWIW, I agree 100% with Daniel. > > Code isn't the problem here. It's the user-gdb interface. Does the the > user model still work if there is more than one architecture. Not > exploring the user-gdb interaction and instead just hacking code is how > we came to have all the CLI querks we've come to hate :-) I'd argue (in fact, am arguing) that the user interface will be just fine with multiple architectures, with the command as discussed, but that the edge conditions should wait. > Anyway, I suspect just forcing the architecture when the OSABI is > changed is the most robust approach: > > >(gdb) set osabi MIPS/GNU/Linux > >Current architecture is NS32K, change to MIPS? (y or n) > > ``the user is always right'' (no matter how silly it is :-). But we don't break them down like that. The OSABI is "GNU/Linux". > I think it is also becomming aparent that there are several OSABI involved: > > - the global default > - the current instance > > ``set osabi'' would change the current instance. Sure. This problem is _EVERYWHERE_ in GDB. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer