From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32495 invoked by alias); 30 Jun 2009 12:11:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 32487 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jun 2009 12:11:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_93,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; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:11:36 +0000 Received: (qmail 15797 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2009 12:11:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 30 Jun 2009 12:11:34 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Aleksandar Ristovski Subject: Re: [patch] gdbserver: Add qnx target Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:11:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200906200102.25411.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4A42757F.4020804@qnx.com> In-Reply-To: <4A42757F.4020804@qnx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200906301312.42665.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: 2009-06/txt/msg00863.txt.bz2 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