From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12824 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2003 17:10:48 -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 12817 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2003 17:10:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 25 Feb 2003 17:10:47 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1PHAhv07449; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:10:43 -0600 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:10:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200302251710.h1PHAhv07449@duracef.shout.net> To: ac131313@redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] PROBLEMS (i[3456]86-*-linux*): Require glibc 2.1.3 or later Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00644.txt.bz2 > Should the build notes also mention this? The PROBLEM (groan) with the > PROBLEMS file is that people often don't read it :-). I picked PROBLEMS because it seemed to be the file with the appropriate level of detail. I'm flexible on this, I'm willing to wrote notes wherever you like, just say where. Do you want text in 'README: Unpacking and Installation: Quick Overview' or 'NEWS', or ??? > Does the build (configure or compile) barf clearly explain the reason > for the failure? If it is this common, GDB might as well be a little > proactive and complain up front. The compile barfs like this: In file included from ../../gdb-5.2/gdb/thread-db.c:26: ../../gdb-5.2/gdb/gdb_thread_db.h:211: parse error before `uintptr_t' ../../gdb-5.2/gdb/gdb_thread_db.h:211: warning: no semicolon at end of struct or union ../../gdb-5.2/gdb/gdb_thread_db.h:211: warning: no semicolon at end of struct or union ../../gdb-5.2/gdb/gdb_thread_db.h:212: warning: type defaults to `int' in declaration of `msg' ../../gdb-5.2/gdb/gdb_thread_db.h:212: warning: data definition has no type or storage class ../../gdb-5.2/gdb/gdb_thread_db.h:213: parse error before `}' This could be detected at autoconf time, something like: AC_MSG_CHECKING(for uintptr_t support in glibc) AC_CACHE_VAL(ac_cv_c_uintptr_t, [AC_TRY_COMPILE(, [ #include uintptr_t foo; ], ac_cv_c_uintptr_t=yes, ac_cv_c_uintptr_t=no)]) AC_MSG_RESULT($ac_cv_c_uintptr_t) if test $ac_cv_c_uintptr_t = yes; then AC_DEFINE(HAVE_UINTPTR_T) fi Then gdb_thread_db.h could produce a better error message if it gets compiled. It's used only on *-*-*linux* and s390-*-*, not everywhere. Do you want to go in that direction? That looks reasonable to me. I would balk at actually filling in a defintion of uintptr_t though. If their glibc is that old (3 years old!) they are likely to have other problems and I want to cauterize their build. Michael C