From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5983 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2012 15:21:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 5972 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Mar 2012 15:21:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 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; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:21:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8161C6A4A; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:21:02 -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 x6K1YpXiTtdd; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:21:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E37D1C6A49; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:21:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 194E4145616; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:21:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: gdb-patches ml Subject: Re: [RFA] Define Elf32_auxv_t and Elf64_auxv_t if not available. Message-ID: <20120327152058.GF2701@adacore.com> References: <1332787763.30339.10.camel@hactar> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1332787763.30339.10.camel@hactar> 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00909.txt.bz2 > 2012-03-26 Thiago Jung Bauermann > > * configure.ac: Check whether Elf32_auxv_t and Elf64_auxv_t > are available. > * linux-low.c [HAVE_ELF32_AUXV_T] (Elf32_auxv_t): Add typedef. > [HAVE_ELF64_AUXV_T] (Elf64_auxv_t): Likewise. (you'll need to mention the fact that configure and config.in need to be regenerated) I am not very familiar with this area, so I am hoping someone else might provide feedback as well. I only have a minor question. Other than that, I don't see a problem with the patch... > diff --git a/gdb/gdbserver/configure.ac b/gdb/gdbserver/configure.ac > index e6e9162..6b98dc0 100644 > --- a/gdb/gdbserver/configure.ac > +++ b/gdb/gdbserver/configure.ac > @@ -163,9 +163,10 @@ fi > > AC_CHECK_DECLS([strerror, perror, memmem, vasprintf, vsnprintf]) > > -AC_CHECK_TYPES(socklen_t, [], [], > +AC_CHECK_TYPES([socklen_t, Elf32_auxv_t, Elf64_auxv_t], [], [], > [#include > #include > +#include > ]) I wonder if we shouldn't be using two separate checks here. Seems unlikely to be a problem in practice, but we're looking for for a type is + , and then looking for another collection of types in . We know we're most likely not going to get any "cross-polination" finding socklen_t in , but if this sort of thing were to happen, we would be in a situation where the configure check finds the type, but the code (which presumably might only include types.h and sockets.h) does not, leading to a build error. (let's wait for more feedback before we make any change - someone might disagree) -- Joel