From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1609 invoked by alias); 11 May 2007 22:49:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 1595 invoked by uid 22791); 11 May 2007 22:49:48 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2007 22:49:45 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771B148CF0B for ; Fri, 11 May 2007 18:49:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 15704-01-5 for ; Fri, 11 May 2007 18:49:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (unknown [70.71.0.212]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B21248CEDA for ; Fri, 11 May 2007 18:49:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DF9B3E7B4F; Fri, 11 May 2007 15:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 22:49:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] no shared library support warning on powerpc-elf Message-ID: <20070511225001.GA3559@adacore.com> References: <20070508221252.GG3798@adacore.com> <20070511180155.GB1684@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070511180155.GB1684@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2007-05/txt/msg00214.txt.bz2 > > In the case of powerpc-elf, GDB links in solib.c and solib-svr4.c. > > I don't think the bareboard case is supported by these units, so > > I think the sensible thing to do is to remove them from the closure > > and not build them. > > Except this interferes with using one GDB for both powerpc-elf and > powerpc-linux. So it's not a great solution. Argh! I didn't notice that powerpc-linux was also affected. Thanks for catching this... > Maybe the warning should simply be removed? I don't think it's very > valuable. If shared library support is really missing, either the > testsuite will catch it or a user will eventually notice. I agree it's not very useful in this case. It's not something that is conditional on the environment, but rather a known limitation. Seeing the debugger emit this warning every time can make the user think that something's wrong with his setup. So, I'm all for removing it. Any objection from anyone? -- Joel