From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2269 invoked by alias); 14 May 2011 17:07:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 2261 invoked by uid 22791); 14 May 2011 17:07:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_BG X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 14 May 2011 17:07:30 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24CB52BAC0B; Sat, 14 May 2011 13:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id aEy+RkIzLx0T; Sat, 14 May 2011 13:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E82452BABDD; Sat, 14 May 2011 13:07:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BF5DB145615; Sat, 14 May 2011 10:07:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 17:07:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Yao Qi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Remove HAVE_UINTPTR_T from gdb_thread_db.h Message-ID: <20110514170722.GD19356@adacore.com> References: <4DCE1F43.1000301@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DCE1F43.1000301@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-05/txt/msg00341.txt.bz2 > When I am trying to move gdb_thread_db.h to common/ dir, I am so sorry for not having the time to work on this project, and so it make me uncomfortable saying this without offering advice, but I still feel uncomfortable about not having a clear plan, and not knowing where we are going with this. I'm afraid that the end result might be a tighter inter-dependency between GDB and GDBserver instead of GDB and GDBserver sitting on top of a common API (we could call it a mini libgdb). I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'd like to see a plan to move functionality, rather than just some definitions that we happen to be using from both ends. I find there is > still a macro check like, > > #ifndef HAVE_UINTPTR_T > ... > #endif > > I don't think we need this any more. This piece of code was introduced > by patch [1] in 2003, however, in 2008, Daniel has a patch [2] to remove > tests for uintptr_t. > > OK to remove this check? > > [1] [rfa] gdb_thread_db.h: #errror if no uintptr_t. > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2003-02/msg00708.html > [2] [RFC] Use gnulib's stdint.h. > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-06/msg00478.html > > -- > Yao (??????) > 2011-05-14 Yao Qi > > * gdb/gdb_thread_db.h: Remove HAVE_UINTPTR_T. This is OK. Your change, though, is made possible only because GDB uses gnulib. This is not the case for GDBserver, which might become a problem if we think we should support it on older libc's. That being said, I'm again quite uncomfortable not knowing what is going to be moved to common and how. I am so sad that I do not have the time right now to help with planning this, not being able to provide suggestions at this time. But what I'm seeing is some stuff being moved to common/ pretty much on demand without much of a design. I'm afraid that, if we're not careful, we'll end up with a tighter interdependency between GDB and GDBserver. What I'd like to see is functionality being moved to common, and accessible through an API, a mini libgdb if you will, not just linux-only definitions. (it's interesting that I'm leaning towards the idea of making common/ a sub-project of GDB/GDBserver, with Makefile and all, the way it was initially implemented) -- Joel