From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4504 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2009 14:21:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 4472 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Apr 2009 14:20:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:20:53 +0000 Received: (qmail 26972 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2009 14:20:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 15 Apr 2009 14:20:50 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] GDB ARIndex Linux rule cleanup Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:21:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: "Ulrich Weigand" , Pierre Muller , "'Joel Brobecker'" , gdb@sourceware.org, "'Eli Zaretskii'" References: <200904151400.n3FE0div003099@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200904151400.n3FE0div003099@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200904151520.52299.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00304.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 15 April 2009 15:00:39, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > Index: ppc-linux-tdep.h > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > > -/* Linux target descriptions. =A0*/ > > +/* Linux kernel target descriptions. =A0*/ >=20 >=20 > It seems to me that in *those* cases, we should actually use > GNU/Linux instead -- this is talking about GDB target support > for the GNU/Linux operating system on PowerPC, and not specifically > related to the kernel only (for example, those target descriptions > are also used when analysing a core file on a remote system). I disagree. Everything in that file is related to register descriptions and layouts defined by Linux, the kernel, what's in userland doesn't affect any of it, or did I miss something? Even if I built a system comprising of a Linux kernel + all BSD userland, these constants and offsets would still apply. On Wednesday 15 April 2009 15:00:39, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > /* Create a prototype generic GNU/Linux target.=20=20 I'm of the oposite opinion. I consider *this* a bug. This file (linux-nat.c) concerns about abstracting of ptrace and /proc interfaces, which are kernel defined interfaces. > The other instances in your patch, where a kernel version > is specifically named, clearly refer to the Linux kernel. >=20 > I'd be fine with adding "kernel" to the text here; but I > also agree with Eli's suggestion that it might be even=20 > better to have the ARI script recognize use of a version > number ... I re-suggest what Mark suggested, that we drop the ARI rule. It is only inventing work. I suggest we apply the Linux vs GNU/Linux judgement at patch review time, and be mostly careful in documentation and user visible strings, not in code directly interfacing with kernel data structures and interfaces. --=20 Pedro Alves