* [RFC] want to #undef HAVE_SBRK and HAVE_POLL on Interix
@ 2002-10-20 23:11 Joel Brobecker
2002-10-21 12:08 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2002-10-20 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1744 bytes --]
Hello,
This is something I did sometime ago, and wanted to discuss with you
before proposing a change more formally.
Here goes: On Interix, the sbrk() function exists, but is not
sufficiently implemented to be used in GDB. Because it exists,
AC_CHECK_FUNCS (sbrk) finds it, and therefore configure adds the
associated "#define HAVE_SBRK" in config.h.
If you look at xm-interix.h in the files I recently submitted, you will
see that there is a "#undef HAVE_SBRK" to counter the result of
AC_CHECK_FUNCS. I would like to get rid of this #undef. To do that, the
only way I found is to either:
1. let configure test for sbrk() on Interix, but then override the
test result afterward by undefining (in the configure sense)
HAVE_SBRK. Something like:
AC_CHECK_FUNCS (....) # this line is unchanged
case "${host}" in
*-*-interix* )
undefine (HAVE_BRK)
;;
* )
;;
esac
2. do not do the AC_CHECK_FUNCS test for sbrk() on Interix. This way,
HAVE_SBRK will never be defined, and we don't need the undef in
xm-interix.h anymore.
I did not find a way in the documentation to undefine a variable that
was previously defined. So I could not implement 1. I also thought that
a user might find it confusing to see the output of configure show
Checking for sbrk... yes
and then no see HAVE_SBRK defined in config.h...
So I implemented 2. A patch is attached (it is only the configure.in
part, the rest will follow if the approach to the problem is approved).
I also did the same for the poll() function, which should not be used
on Interix as well.
Is it the best approach to the problem? Would such a patch be accepted
for inclusion?
Thanks,
--
Joel
[-- Attachment #2: configure.in.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1607 bytes --]
Index: configure.in
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/configure.in,v
retrieving revision 1.91
diff -c -3 -p -r1.91 configure.in
*** configure.in 20 Sep 2002 00:24:01 -0000 1.91
--- configure.in 21 Oct 2002 05:52:28 -0000
*************** AC_HEADER_STAT
*** 134,141 ****
AC_C_CONST
AC_C_INLINE
! AC_CHECK_FUNCS(bcopy btowc bzero canonicalize_file_name isascii poll \
! realpath sbrk setpgid setpgrp sigaction sigprocmask sigsetmask )
AC_FUNC_ALLOCA
AC_FUNC_VFORK
dnl AC_FUNC_SETPGRP does not work when cross compiling
--- 134,161 ----
AC_C_CONST
AC_C_INLINE
! AC_CHECK_FUNCS(bcopy btowc bzero canonicalize_file_name isascii \
! realpath setpgid setpgrp sigaction sigprocmask sigsetmask )
!
! # Certain systems implement broken or incomplete versions of some
! # functions, which cause AC_CHECK_FUNCS to define the associated HAVE_*
! # macro. But we actually do not want to this macro to be defined on
! # these systems where we know it is broken. So we simply skip the test
! # for these functions and pretend that it does not exist.
! case "${host}" in
! *-*-interix*)
! # On Interix, there is only a minimal sbrk(). This function does not
! # provide the functionality that is needed in the case of GDB (there
! # is no relationship at all with environ).
!
! # The poll() function is only partially implemented so far...
! ;;
! *)
! AC_CHECK_FUNCS(sbrk)
! AC_CHECK_FUNCS(poll)
! ;;
! esac
!
AC_FUNC_ALLOCA
AC_FUNC_VFORK
dnl AC_FUNC_SETPGRP does not work when cross compiling
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC] want to #undef HAVE_SBRK and HAVE_POLL on Interix
2002-10-20 23:11 [RFC] want to #undef HAVE_SBRK and HAVE_POLL on Interix Joel Brobecker
@ 2002-10-21 12:08 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-10-21 21:48 ` Joel Brobecker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2002-10-21 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: gdb-patches
> Hello,
>
> This is something I did sometime ago, and wanted to discuss with you
> before proposing a change more formally.
>
> Here goes: On Interix, the sbrk() function exists, but is not
> sufficiently implemented to be used in GDB. Because it exists,
> AC_CHECK_FUNCS (sbrk) finds it, and therefore configure adds the
> associated "#define HAVE_SBRK" in config.h.
>
> If you look at xm-interix.h in the files I recently submitted, you will
> see that there is a "#undef HAVE_SBRK" to counter the result of
> AC_CHECK_FUNCS. I would like to get rid of this #undef. To do that, the
> only way I found is to either:
I've been wondering if the interix patch should even be allowed to add
xm-interix.h. New hosts shouldn't need it, instead using autoconf for
everything.
> 1. let configure test for sbrk() on Interix, but then override the
> test result afterward by undefining (in the configure sense)
> HAVE_SBRK. Something like:
>
> AC_CHECK_FUNCS (....) # this line is unchanged
> case "${host}" in
> *-*-interix* )
> undefine (HAVE_BRK)
> ;;
> * )
> ;;
> esac
>
> 2. do not do the AC_CHECK_FUNCS test for sbrk() on Interix. This way,
> HAVE_SBRK will never be defined, and we don't need the undef in
> xm-interix.h anymore.
>
> I did not find a way in the documentation to undefine a variable that
> was previously defined. So I could not implement 1. I also thought that
> a user might find it confusing to see the output of configure show
aclocal.m4 is always a good source of ideas.
> Checking for sbrk... yes
>
> and then no see HAVE_SBRK defined in config.h...
>
> So I implemented 2. A patch is attached (it is only the configure.in
> part, the rest will follow if the approach to the problem is approved).
> I also did the same for the poll() function, which should not be used
> on Interix as well.
>
> Is it the best approach to the problem? Would such a patch be accepted
> for inclusion?
As you note, it's definitly better than 1. As for best I'm not an
autoconf person so ...
I'd just suggest tweaking it a little so that it:
> ! AC_CHECK_FUNCS(bcopy btowc bzero canonicalize_file_name isascii \
> ! realpath setpgid setpgrp sigaction sigprocmask sigsetmask )
> !
> ! # Certain systems implement broken or incomplete versions of some
> ! # functions, which cause AC_CHECK_FUNCS to define the associated HAVE_*
> ! # macro. But we actually do not want to this macro to be defined on
> ! # these systems where we know it is broken. So we simply skip the test
> ! # for these functions and pretend that it does not exist.
> ! case "${host}" in
> ! *-*-interix*)
> ! # On Interix, there is only a minimal sbrk(). This function does not
> ! # provide the functionality that is needed in the case of GDB (there
> ! # is no relationship at all with environ).
> !
> ! # The poll() function is only partially implemented so far...
Here, report that it wasn't even testing for sbrk() or poll(). That
way, there would be no confusion over a missing test. Use AC_MSG_WARN()
I think.
> ! ;;
> ! *)
> ! AC_CHECK_FUNCS(sbrk)
> ! AC_CHECK_FUNCS(poll)
> ! ;;
> ! esac
> !
> AC_FUNC_ALLOCA
> AC_FUNC_VFORK
> dnl AC_FUNC_SETPGRP does not work when cross compiling
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC] want to #undef HAVE_SBRK and HAVE_POLL on Interix
2002-10-21 12:08 ` Andrew Cagney
@ 2002-10-21 21:48 ` Joel Brobecker
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2002-10-21 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: gdb-patches
> I'd just suggest tweaking it a little so that it:
[snip]
>
> Here, report that it wasn't even testing for sbrk() or poll(). That
> way, there would be no confusion over a missing test. Use AC_MSG_WARN()
> I think.
Makes sense. If nobody objects to this approach in the next few days,
I will submit for approval a patch with the warnings (I will also go
fishing in aclocal, just in case I find something better).
Thanks,
--
Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-10-22 4:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-10-20 23:11 [RFC] want to #undef HAVE_SBRK and HAVE_POLL on Interix Joel Brobecker
2002-10-21 12:08 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-10-21 21:48 ` Joel Brobecker
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox