From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13490 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2004 19:24:37 -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 13474 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2004 19:24:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Apr 2004 19:24:36 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B15D2B9D; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:23:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <408032C5.9040104@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:24:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: build failure due to observer.sh References: <20040416163944.GS1131@gnat.com> In-Reply-To: <20040416163944.GS1131@gnat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00372.txt.bz2 > Hello, > > The build failed on most of our machines, due to a problem happening > during the sed command in observer.sh. Here is the output we got: > > Creating observer.h-tmp > sed: # Save original line for later processing into the actual parameter is not a recognized function. > > As a consequence, all observers are missing, and we fail during the link. > > I tried on AiX to remove the comments, to see if it works any better, > and managed to get past this error. Are comments a GNU sed extension? I don't think so, just sounds like it isn't a common extension, do the comments need to be in column one? With the comments removed did it build? > In my opinion, I would handle observer.sh the same as gdbarch.sh: > The contributors run it manually when needed. And we keep and up-to-date > version of observer.[hc] checked in the repository. That way, we avoid > requiring a certain implementation of sed when just building GDB. Having this built on-demand is one of the departures from gdbarch.sh (and why I committed this now, so early in a release cycle). I'd like to see how unfixable the problem is before abandoning the idea. > I can regenerate observer.[hc] and check them in, if you agree. Lets first move the comments to outside of the sed line. After that the SED can be simplified by using separate extracts for formal and actual. If those fail, then yes, I guess we go back to generated observers. Andrew