Re: RFC: "set osabi"

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 10:47:46PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> As promised.  I'm also looking for comments on this patch.  I know it needs
> documentation still; that's on hold for a moment because it would conflict
> with one of my other pending doc patches (since I want to put them in the
> same section).  I'll do the docs before committing this.
> 
> This patch implements:
>   - "set osabi"
>   - "show osabi"
>   - The concept of a "default OS ABI" which will be applied instead
>     of GDB_OSABI_UNKNOWN to an untagged binary.
> 
> It looks like this:
> 
> (gdb) show osabi
> The current OS ABI is "auto" (currently "GNU/Linux").
> The default OS ABI is "GNU/Linux".
> (gdb) set osabi
> Requires an argument. Valid arguments are auto, default, none, SVR4, DJGPP,
> NetWare, GNU/Linux.
> (gdb) set osabi SVR4
> (gdb) show osabi
> The current OS ABI is "SVR4".
> The default OS ABI is "GNU/Linux".
> (gdb) set osabi default
> (gdb) show osabi
> The current OS ABI is "GNU/Linux".
> The default OS ABI is "GNU/Linux".
> (gdb) set osabi auto
> (gdb) show osabi
> The current OS ABI is "auto" (currently "GNU/Linux").
> The default OS ABI is "GNU/Linux".
> 
> 
> Right now, it doesn't handle architectures refusing an OSABI terribly
> gracefully.  This doesn't bother me because:
>   - The logical place to handle this gracefully is clearly marked
>   - The interfaces to handle it are already there via gdbarch
>   - None of our architectures ever actually refuse an OSABI anyway as far
>     as I can see; they just treat unknowns as, well, unknown.  That needs
>     to change some day.
> We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
> 
> Comments?  Tentatively I'll apply this in a week or so, after I get feedback
> on the preceding patch (which this requires).

It's in.  I forgot to mention: this patch also includes a bug fix. 
Nothing actually depended on config.h in the objdir!  Consequence:
reconfigure with different options, and nothing got rebuilt at all...

This will cause more rebuilt files every time someone checks in a patch
to config.in and you update your source tree, but it's obviously
necessary.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer