From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26483 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2009 16:11:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 26471 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Oct 2009 16:11:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:11:42 +0000 Received: (qmail 20470 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2009 16:11:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 23 Oct 2009 16:11:40 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Makefile.in, linux.mh: Move Process Record to NATDEPFILES Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:11:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: Michael Snyder References: <4AE1CF46.7030106@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <4AE1CF46.7030106@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200910231711.48441.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: 2009-10/txt/msg00593.txt.bz2 On Friday 23 October 2009 16:44:06, Michael Snyder wrote: > Hey folks, we ran into a bunch of build problems because record.c > was being compiled in a lot of builds where it wasn't needed (or > tested). > > This change will make record.c be like gcore.c, in that it is only > built if the target config files explicitly call for it. (You mean the host config file.) No. We had designed record_stratum so that it could be used transparently of whatever's the process_stratum target beneath, which allows precord to work against remote (gdbserver) and sim, e.g., moxie precord support. > For this patch, I've only included record.c for i386-linux. > We can add amd64-linux in a separate patch if we decide it is > ready. -- Pedro Alves