From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23154 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2011 16:44:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 22987 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Apr 2011 16:44:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_DB,TW_ZM,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:44:08 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p3RGgVg1019462; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:42:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id p3RGgUW8025117; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:42:30 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:44:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201104271642.p3RGgUW8025117@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: brobecker@adacore.com CC: yao@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20110427161802.GC2489@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:18:02 -0700) Subject: Re: New ARI warning Wed Apr 27 01:54:55 UTC 2011 References: <20110427015455.GA24839@sourceware.org> <4DB78A74.9060105@codesourcery.com> <20110427150815.GB2489@adacore.com> <4DB83ACB.6080503@codesourcery.com> <20110427161802.GC2489@adacore.com> 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: 2011-04/txt/msg00514.txt.bz2 > 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 > 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 . 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...