From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29186 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2009 08:12:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 29177 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Oct 2009 08:12:55 -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; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:12:49 +0000 Received: (qmail 28825 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2009 08:12:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 25 Oct 2009 08:12:48 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Michael Snyder Subject: Re: [RFA] Makefile.in, linux.mh: Move Process Record to NATDEPFILES Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:12:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <4AE1CF46.7030106@vmware.com> <200910231711.48441.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4AE3AA51.9020602@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <4AE3AA51.9020602@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200910250813.02107.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/msg00621.txt.bz2 On Sunday 25 October 2009 01:30:57, Michael Snyder wrote: > Pedro Alves wrote: > > 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. > > Hmmm, ok -- I must not have followed that discussion closely. There wasn't that much discussion: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-06/msg00149.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-05/msg00657.html I major point I was trying to put across, and that I could have been a bit more explicit is that, being able to be used transparently of whatever's the process_stratum target beneath (as opposed to only the native child target) means "precord should be host independent". > I don't think the fact that precord can work against whatever > target is beneath it has been widely advertised yet. It certainly > hasn't been widely tested, eg. against remote. Huh. So? Does that mean we should break it and make it impossible to test? > I appreciate the desire, but is it ready for prime time? > Perhaps, as a compromise, we could link record.o against all > gdbs that currently link against gcore.o? Which would include > most linuxen, many freebsd, and both i386 and sparc solaris? No. Sorry, I could have been clearer explaning the objection. Take for example, moxie precord support (--target=moxie-elf): this AFAICS, works with "target sim" --- hence _host independent_. Making record.o only link on gdbs that currently link against gcore.o would make that support _host dependent_, which is obviously wrong. Why shouldn't e.g, a i686-mingw32 x moxie-elf gdb be able to support reverse moxie debugging? Moxie here is just an example, other target sim supported archs could gain 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. > > I should have gone on to say, and then add more hosts > as and when they are ready (assuming they also support gcore). No, sorry. As I said, precord support should not be host dependent, as it was up until a few days ago. A simpler fix, would be to go the other direction. That of making gdb always link with gcore.o and corelow.o. -- Pedro Alves