From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31771 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2009 15:32:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 31752 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Apr 2009 15:32:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtagate4.de.ibm.com (HELO mtagate4.de.ibm.com) (195.212.29.153) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:32:29 +0000 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate4.de.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3FFWIg4083718; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:32:18 GMT Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n3FFWIex1581226; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:32:18 +0200 Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n3FFWHh0005255; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:32:18 +0200 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id n3FFWGaT005240; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:32:16 +0200 Message-Id: <200904151532.n3FFWGaT005240@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:32:16 +0200 Subject: Re: [RFC] GDB ARIndex Linux rule cleanup To: pedro@codesourcery.com (Pedro Alves) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:32:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr (Pierre Muller), brobecker@adacore.com ('Joel Brobecker'), gdb@sourceware.org, eliz@gnu.org ('Eli Zaretskii') In-Reply-To: <200904151520.52299.pedro@codesourcery.com> from "Pedro Alves" at Apr 15, 2009 03:20:51 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00312.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > On Wednesday 15 April 2009 15:00:39, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > 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. > > /* 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. See my reply to Eli ... lots of target-specific information is *not* related to the Linux kernel, but the platform ABI, libc, libpthread ... > > 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. I agree that user-visible instances are certainly much more important, and I don't really have any strong opinion on whether there is any need to enforce the GNU/Linux rule in source code comments. My point was simply that (to me, at least) there is clear evidence of a pre-existing convention in GDB sources (all references to a GDB "target" refer in fact to the target OS, and thus GNU/Linux should be used), and those three places in ppc-linux* that Pierre identified were the only deviations from that convention. Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com