From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10419 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2007 19:01:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 10386 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Mar 2007 19:01:28 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from return.false.org (HELO return.false.org) (66.207.162.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:01:13 +0100 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF0F4B26F; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:01:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B6384B26D; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:01:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HXMLT-0007PT-29; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:01:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:01:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: eliz@gnu.org, denis.pilat@st.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] gdb is broken: missing signal.h checking Message-ID: <20070330190106.GA28397@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , eliz@gnu.org, denis.pilat@st.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <460BD630.20709@st.com> <19115.212.123.203.30.1175190093.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> <20070329174808.GA28084@caradoc.them.org> <20070330121226.GB7415@caradoc.them.org> <200703301853.l2UIrTSg009986@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200703301853.l2UIrTSg009986@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14+cvs20070313 (2007-03-13) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-03/txt/msg00368.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 08:53:29PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Aha, missed that bit of detail I guess. It's very recent :-) > > I believe some projects (binutils and gcc maybe?) draw a distinction > > between "an ISO C compiler" and "an ISO C standard library" and > > require the former but not the latter. > > The distinction is "Freestanding" versus "Hosted" I believe. > Obviously GDB requires the latterm but I can see people wanting to > support the former for gdbserver. There's actually some further differences. I believe - but this is basically hearsay since I can't remember the specifics - that there are some vendor compilers on the commercial Unices which support all of the language features of ISO C90 but not all the runtime features. So e.g. prototypes are fine but printf might return bogus values, to use an example that recently bit GCC. Anyway, I agree. We can get away with it now. If we encounter any specific holes, I've been watching gnulib mature to fill them - I still hope I can use their printf implementation for GDB soon. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery