From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31774 invoked by alias); 27 Sep 2006 18:56:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 31764 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Sep 2006 18:56:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from 195.22.55.53.adsl.nextra.cz (HELO host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net) (195.22.55.53) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:56:28 +0000 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id k8RItl2w015999; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:55:47 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id k8RItlQ4015998; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:55:47 +0200 Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:56:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: [patch] IPv6 support for gdbserver Message-ID: <20060927185547.GA13544@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <20060927163337.GA27149@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20060927182038.GA5635@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060927182038.GA5635@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-09/txt/msg00198.txt.bz2 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