From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8878 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2007 19:55:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 8859 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Apr 2007 19:55:05 -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; Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:55:02 +0100 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A7E94B267; Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:55:01 -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 4F06F4B262; Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:55:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Hht0W-0001oJ-7F; Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:55:00 -0400 Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:29:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Remove ptrace-based Alpha OSF support Message-ID: <20070428195500.GA6695@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200704281850.l3SIobkv014053@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200704281850.l3SIobkv014053@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) 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: 2007-04/txt/msg00379.txt.bz2 On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 08:50:37PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > However, this has been broken a long time ago: CVS revision 1.2 > of procfs.c already no longer has the #ifdef HAVE_OPTIONAL_PROC_FS > support. In fact, I'm not quite sure what happened there: > > revision 1.2 > date: 2000/02/16 08:02:57; author: cagney; state: Exp; lines: +4540 -5031 > From Rodney Brown: Define MERGEPID when needed. > > as this revision is basically a re-write of the whole file, which doesn't > really match the log entry ... This bit I can explain. The diff between 1.1 and 1.2 is not interesting; the diff between the last revision on the 1.1.1.x vendor branch is. A number of GDB snapshots were imported to create the sourceware repository, and CVS's handling of imports is quirky. > The following patch implements the above suggestion. It's not > really tested as I don't have access to an OSF system, but it > appears to compile (modulo procfs headers), and the configuration > changes seem to work ... > > > What do you think? Is this reasonable? Did I miss something > in the above analysis? This all seems reasonable to me. I believe that Joel has access to an OSF system at AdaCore; maybe he can test the patch for you? Someone told me while I was obsoleting targets that osf1 and probably osf2 could go. I don't recall who. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery