Re: New ARI warning Wed Apr 27 01:54:55 UTC 2011

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
> X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:18:02 -0700
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
> Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
> X-XS4ALL-DNSBL-Checked: mxdrop220.xs4all.nl checked 209.132.180.131 against DNS blacklists
> X-CNFS-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=a8sYchbnJd2dMYUqqjolUMD0rF/qLqJCTuzWyWz0xZo= c=1
> 	sm=0 a=XYJHFtupD_QA:10 a=msjzrvmC9sEA:10 a=idPYu1UqwmkA:10
> 	a=wPDyFdB5xvgA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=vbYRN7G9ZuyAWxq09MFwFw==:17
> 	a=s8b-tOObir8ccsWKurEA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10
> 	a=vbYRN7G9ZuyAWxq09MFwFw==:117
> X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner
> X-XS4ALL-Spam-Score: -0.0 () SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS
> X-XS4ALL-Spam: NO
> Envelope-To: m.m.kettenis@xs4all.nl
> 
> > Yes, I agree.  So far, gdb code is using gdb_wait.h and gdbserver is
> > using sys/wait.h.  gdb_wait.h looks quite independent of gdb or
> > gdbserver.  Is there any known reason that we can't use gdb_wait.h in
> > gdbserver?  I don't see any.
> 
> You need to make sure that both configures test for sys/wait.h and
> wait.h. I looked at gdbserver's configure, and it is missing the check
> for wait.

And suddenly even that "trivial" linux-ptrace.h diff is turning into a
can of worms.  Some people, including me, have stated that the stuff in
common/ should *not* depend on any configure checks

In this case there probably is a way out though.  I don't think there
are any systems out there that don't have <sys/wait.h>.  So we could
just get rid of gdb_wait.h altogether.

But this doesn't encourage me to give my blessing to the i386-dbg diff...