From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30368 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2003 13:55:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30359 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2003 13:55:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Oct 2003 13:55:05 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C838E2B89; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:55:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F992F3A.8090607@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:55:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Fix gdb/1426: osabi initialization race condition References: <3F98921A.9040302@redhat.com> <20031024041207.GA19243@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00725.txt.bz2 > On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 10:44:42PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> ref: http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/bugs/1426 for details. >> >> The attached implements the "hack" suggested in tdep/1426 to work around >> a bogus error message: >> >> A handler for the OS ABI "GNU/Linux" is not built into this >> configuration of GDB. Attempting to continue with the default >> rs6000:6000 settingsGNU gdb 2003-10-23-cvs >> Copyright 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >> ... >> >> that appears on some platforms during startup. >> >> Baring comment, I'll commit this in a few days. >> >> Andrew > > > This is a rather unfortunate hack. Hmm, patch withdrawn. > This is the way it is now, I think: > - first architecture is created > - per-file init: > - then the target's tdep file creates the osabi The sequence was: - create fake architecture - per-file init - create real architecture but a more careful check reveals that the first call has been eliminated - something else is causing that warning :-/ Andrew