Re: [patch] gdbserver: Add qnx target

[Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>]

On Wednesday 24 June 2009 19:50:39, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote:

> Ok, here is my new patch. I addressed all of the above, and 
> probably introduced some new issues :-).  For my bonus 
> points, I added comments for each function definition in 
> nto-low.c

:-) Thanks for that.

On Wednesday 24 June 2009 19:50:39, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote:
> +  /* Skip over argc, argv and envp... (see comment in ldd.c)  */

Are ldd.c's sources available?  :-)  If not, could you paste
that comment there too?

On Wednesday 24 June 2009 19:50:39, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote
> +  i[34567]86-*-nto*)   srv_regobj=reg-i386.o
> +                       srv_tgtobj="nto-low.o nto-x86-low.o"
> +                       srv_qnx_LIBS=-lsocket
> +                       srv_qnx="yes"

Do you think the set of libs will change depending on the qnx
arch?  In other words, if you're adding a $srv_qnx, do you really
need a new srv_qnx_LIBS variable?

> +  //TODO: FPU, XMM registers
> +  return -1;

Is this a planned feature?  An nto limitation?  Anyway, the reason
this caught my eye was due to use of C++ style comment.  For
consistency, please always use C-style comments (yes, even though
gcc supports those as C extension for ages).


> Let me know what you think (once this goes in, I will change 
> gdb's configure.tgt to say "yes" to generating gdbserver for 
> Neutrino - in a separate patch submission).
> 

Other than the obvious watchpoint/point interface
changes that happened meanwhile, and the nits above, it looks OK to me.


-- 
Pedro Alves