Re: [patch] Bring QNX Neutrino support forward.

Andrew Cagney
2004-03-24T14:35:34Z

> Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>>> Some of this stuff is cosmetic/convenience. I made the macros for my nto_target structure testable and moved the comments into the structure where they're more useful.
>>>
>>> A few things had to do with initializers. Some of the signal handling stuff didn't work because other _init functions hadn't been called so I moved them out to where they could be called when the osabi is initialized.
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW, what was the race condition?
>
>
> The _initialize_* functions were being called in a different order than previously so all my signal initialization stuff was breaking when I put it into my _init* funcs. It was a while ago I changed it (haven't been working on FSF gdb recently) but I believe it was target_signal_from_name....

Ulgh, one of those (if you remember any more details :-). I'll need to
investigate - these race conditions are a royal pain.

>>> I added osabi and core sniffers. Some is practical, some is future-proofing. If we start supporting multiple targets, I'm going to want to be able to swap our various target processors support in and out. The is_nto_target type stuff can be made more interesting later to do things like check to see if the remote host processor matches the binary abi and such.
>>
>>
>>
>> You should also be able to kill off regset_core_fns, it's been superseeded by regsets (which reminds me ....).
>
>
> Must have not seen that thread. I'll look into it.

There are no deprecated markers so there's no hint. A grep of
add_core_fns reveals that the i386/amd64 and GNU/Linux PPC do not make
the call so I'm pretty sure that I'm not talking theory here (notably
32x64 GNU/Linux debugging works on those systems -- that needs regsets).

Andrew