From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26250 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2008 18:13:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 26241 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Mar 2008 18:13:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:13:15 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5FC5983A1; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:13:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F27B98140; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:13:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JZVRw-0007Rp-UP; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:13:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:13:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] Fix broken user-thread debugging on x86-solaris Message-ID: <20080312181312.GA28610@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080312170814.GC4433@adacore.com> <20080312172129.GA25188@caradoc.them.org> <20080312180445.GC3738@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080312180445.GC3738@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) 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: 2008-03/txt/msg00131.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:04:45AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > I don't mind, but we also need to check for solaris too, since > procfs is used with other OSes as well. So something like this? > > #if (defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)) && defined (sun) > > It's funny you would prefer this approach over the more functional > macro - I thought that people would crucify me if I suggested something > like this :). Would you prefer to isolate the code in a separate file > like I also suggested? I have no preference whatsoever; just whatever is easier in practice. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery