From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13763 invoked by alias); 6 Sep 2004 14:05:14 -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 13708 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2004 14:05:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Sep 2004 14:05:11 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i86E5BS2017328 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 10:05:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i86E55327462; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 10:05:05 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 889D628D2; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 10:05:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <413C6E8E.6030607@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 14:05:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040831 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Eliminate TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS References: <413B1435.3020102@gnu.org> <01c493ce$Blat.v2.2.2$e86fbec0@zahav.net.il> In-Reply-To: <01c493ce$Blat.v2.2.2$e86fbec0@zahav.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00103.txt.bz2 >>> Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 09:27:17 -0400 >>> From: Andrew Cagney >>> >>> - procfs.c and i386v-nat.c do refer to TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS >>> These files should be replying on an autoconf test. > > > Autoconf tests don't work well for a cross-compiled GDB, and probably > will not work for anything but a native version of GDB. Is procfs.c > used by some non-native target? procfs.c is native only, the deprecated macros being defined in an nm-*.h file. I'll clarify the comments so that it is clear that: - it is native only - in all likelyhood all applicable current systems support this mechanism so no autoconf test is needed (someone needs to do a proper analysis) - its a configuration change, possibly involving an autoconf test > In any case, I'd like to see the suggested Autoconf replacement for > this before we deprecate the feature. This is neither deprecating a feature, nor deprecating a system. Andrew