[PATCH] fix BFD's core support on FreeBSD 4.[2-9]

[PATCH] fix BFD's core support on FreeBSD 4.[2-9]

[David O'Brien]

For the life of me I cannot figure out which branch to commit this to
in case there is a 5.1.2.  Should I use the gdb_5_1-2001-07-29-branch or
gdb_5_1_0_1-2002-01-03-branch ?

========

This patch is needed by GDB to properly configure and build on FreeBSD
4.2 and later.

-- 
-- David  (obrien@FreeBSD.org)


2002-01-31  David O'Brien  <obrien@FreeBSD>

	* configure.in: Recognize the differences in core files from FreeBSD
	4.{0,1} and later versions of 4.x.  This treats 4.2+ the same as
	5-CURRENT.
	* configure: Regenerate.


Index: configure.in
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/configure.in,v
retrieving revision 1.40.2.5
diff -u -r1.40.2.5 configure.in
--- configure.in	2001/06/19 19:58:12	1.40.2.5
+++ configure.in	2002/01/31 17:02:19
@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@
 	TRAD_HEADER='"hosts/symmetry.h"'
 	;;
 changequote(,)dnl
-  i[3456]86-*-bsd* | i[34567]86-*-freebsd[1234] | i[34567]86-*-freebsd[1234]\.* | i[34567]86-*-freebsd*aout*)
+  i[3456]86-*-bsd* | i[34567]86-*-freebsd[123] | i[34567]86-*-freebsd[123]\.* | i[34567]86-*-freebsd4\.[01]* | i[34567]86-*-freebsd*aout*)
 changequote([,])dnl
 	COREFILE=trad-core.lo
 	TRAD_HEADER='"hosts/i386bsd.h"'

Re: [PATCH] fix BFD's core support on FreeBSD 4.[2-9]

[Andrew Cagney]

> For the life of me I cannot figure out which branch to commit this to
> in case there is a 5.1.2.  Should I use the gdb_5_1-2001-07-29-branch or
> gdb_5_1_0_1-2002-01-03-branch ?


(Yes, ok I know, I've been roundly slapped for doing a 5.1.0.1 :-(  At 
least I managed to get around the request for 5.1.0.2 :-)

gdb_5_1-2001-07-29-branch


Thanks for doing this.


Andrew

Re: [PATCH] fix BFD's core support on FreeBSD 4.[2-9]

[David O'Brien]

On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 02:27:01PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > For the life of me I cannot figure out which branch to commit this to
> > in case there is a 5.1.2.  Should I use the gdb_5_1-2001-07-29-branch or
> > gdb_5_1_0_1-2002-01-03-branch ?
> 
> gdb_5_1-2001-07-29-branch

I did not regen bfd/configure as the diff from what is in CVS to what
autoconf 2.13 (Sourceware's 2.13.000227) produced was *MASSIVE* (but
wasn't in mainline when I made this same commit).  What is the right
version of autoconf to use now?
 
-- 
-- David  (obrien@FreeBSD.org)

Re: [PATCH] fix BFD's core support on FreeBSD 4.[2-9]

[Andrew Cagney]

> On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 02:27:01PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>> > For the life of me I cannot figure out which branch to commit this to
>> > in case there is a 5.1.2.  Should I use the gdb_5_1-2001-07-29-branch or
>> > gdb_5_1_0_1-2002-01-03-branch ?
> 
>> 
>> gdb_5_1-2001-07-29-branch
> 
> 
> I did not regen bfd/configure as the diff from what is in CVS to what
> autoconf 2.13 (Sourceware's 2.13.000227) produced was *MASSIVE* (but
> wasn't in mainline when I made this same commit).  What is the right
> version of autoconf to use now?


000227.
Regenerating configure from configure.in, I'm only seeing a one line 
change.  There was a massive difference between -r 
gdb_5_1-2001-07-29-branchpoint and -r gdb_5_1-2001-07-29-branch.

Andrew

Re: [PATCH] fix BFD's core support on FreeBSD 4.[2-9]

[Andrew Cagney]

FYI,

I checked in the regenerated configure file.  Having configure and 
configure.in out of sink leads to bad kama :-)

Andrew