From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] IPv6 support for gdbserver
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:56:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060927185547.GA13544@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060927182038.GA5635@nevyn.them.org>
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:20:38 +0200, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
...
> focused on the environment you're working in (Red Hat Linux).
...
> I suspect that this would break GDB builds on a number of targets
I was thinking about this a bit, forgot to write a not while posting it...
Yes, the current patch is not portable - as it does not need to be.
I was thinking whether to post the patch at all as IMO it does not make much
sense (nowadays) for gdb to support IPv6, just Red Hat requires it.
Still I do not want to invest a lot of time for the autoconf/portability stuff
if it gets dropped down upstream (like by you) afterwards anyway (sometimes
right, no problem with it). It should have been marked more as "RFC" patch.
It is fine for me to update the patch upon request if it gets merged this way.
Still it is not acceptable for me to rewrite the patch from scratch just for
the upstream without reusability for Red Hat (as I was feeling for the case of
SIGSTOP vs. ptrace(2) due to a different kernel variant in use).
At least I do not think I am expected to do this in RH.
I hope I cleared it up; I try to be upstream-cooperative.
...
> so there must be a simpler way to check for any INET6
> interfaces similarly (assuming the current code won't).
I feel there should be a simpler way. It works now fine, I intend to update it.
> Maybe we should add stdin/stdout support to gdbserver and make an
> external utility handle any more fancy networking scenarios. I'm
> thinking of "socat" here. What do you think of that idea? We've done
> stdin/stdout for other stubs in the past and it's quite handy. Or if
> you want to leave inferior stdout alone you can use two specified file
> descriptors.
I do not know, I used only gdb stub or gdbserver on full GNU/Linux.
Still I feel it is more complicated to compile both stripped-down gdbserver AND
IPv6-enabled socat and connect them together on the target UNIX system than
just to compile there the IPv6-enabled (autoconf-configured) gdbserver.
Still it looks simple enough to provide the fd interface for gdbserver, if it
is going to be imported upstream.
Regards,
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-27 18:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-27 16:33 Jan Kratochvil
2006-09-27 18:20 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-09-27 18:56 ` Jan Kratochvil [this message]
2006-09-27 19:06 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-09-30 15:28 ` Jan Kratochvil
2006-10-08 19:03 ` Jan Kratochvil
2006-10-09 4:33 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-10-09 14:17 ` Jan Kratochvil
2006-10-09 19:01 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-10-09 19:36 ` Eli Zaretskii
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060927185547.GA13544@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net \
--to=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox