From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7515 invoked by alias); 4 Oct 2004 14:34:18 -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 7506 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2004 14:34:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Oct 2004 14:34:17 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CETuq-0001kb-Vy; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:34:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:34:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Build inf-ptrace.o when ptrace available Message-ID: <20041004143416.GA6653@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <415DC09D.2070407@gnu.org> <200410012154.i91Ls6lE001359@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <41615D1E.8070007@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41615D1E.8070007@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00046.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 10:24:30AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:39:57 -0400 > > From: Andrew Cagney > > > > Hello, > > > > This modifies GDB's configure to build inf-ptrace.o whenever the ptrace > > call is available. Thoughts? > > > >I'm not sure. On the one hand, yes, inf-ptrace should compile & link > >on any system that has ptrace. On the other hand, actually using this > >stuff is still a per-target decision, and there are quite a few > >targets that have ptrace, but dont use it (Solaris, OSF/1, HP-UX). > > FYI, it isn't _linked_, except on GDB executables that use it. > > >I'm also thinking about the ultimate replacement of the makefile > >fragments in config/*/. I think we should move towards a configure > >script where we can use wildcards to set some sensible defaults. > >There we'd have something like: > > > >*-*-*bsd*) > > native_sources="inf-ptrace.c bsd-nat.c" > > ;; > > > >*-*-linux*) > > native_sources="inf-ptrace.c linux-nat.c" > > ;; This is just a style change. Functionally, it is _exactly_ the same as having a makefile fragment. Personally, I prefer the makefile fragments. > Going forward we need to get GNU/Linux and other systems using procfs > and an obvious migration path for that is to build support for both > procfs and ptrace into a single GDB. The default being to use ptrace. Huh? We don't "need" to do this, and in fact it's not even clearly desirable. I don't get where you're coming from. It's also 100% orthogonal to this issue. -- Daniel Jacobowitz