From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18755 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2004 14:37:04 -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 18583 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2004 14:36:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server7.nfra.nl) (192.87.1.57) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Nov 2004 14:36:54 -0000 Received: from juw15.nfra.nl [10.87.8.15] by server7.nfra.nl; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:36:23 +0100 Received: from juw15.nfra.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by juw15.nfra.nl (8.12.2+Sun/8.11.1) with ESMTP id iAIEacCu025986; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:36:38 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by juw15.nfra.nl (8.12.2+Sun/8.12.2/Submit) id iAIEabdF025983; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:36:37 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:37:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200411181436.iAIEabdF025983@juw15.nfra.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: cagney@gnu.org CC: eliz@gnu.org, joseph@codesourcery.com, kevinb@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <419CAD27.5080908@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:09:43 -0500) Subject: Re: Assume solib.h References: <4193BFA0.3060607@gnu.org> <200411112005.iABK5FrV098628@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4193DDCE.7060205@gnu.org> <200411112224.iABMODmo099121@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4194DBEB.6010304@gnu.org> <01c4c8db$Blat.v2.2.2$377f5020@zahav.net.il> <419942CB.4000905@gnu.org> <01c4cb98$Blat.v2.2.2$fc133040@zahav.net.il> <419A2742.8070804@gnu.org> <200411161917.iAGJHqO8000702@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <419CAD27.5080908@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00374.txt.bz2 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:09:43 -0500 From: Andrew Cagney > Yup, I'm wrong. Not *every* embedded target will break. Some of them > include solib-svr4.o or some other solib-xxx.o; powerpc-elf is one of > them. I'm also wrong that it breaks vax-dec-openbsd* for pretty much > the same reason. However, there are plenty of embedded targets for > which I'm pretty certain that my analysis is true: arm-elf, mips-elf, > i386-elf are among them. I'm not. Can you test my, or kevin's patch? The're pretty much equivalent. How can you say that they're equivalent Andrew? That doesn't make any sense. Kevin's patch fixes what your patch breaks: all targets that currently don't include any shared library support. But let's end this discussion. Kevin, can you check in the patch in http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-11/msg00316.html After that anyone who cares can followup on Andrew's suggestion in http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-11/msg00239.html I might even do the legwork that's needed. Mark