Re: [patch/rfc] Build inf-ptrace.o when ptrace available

[Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>]

>    Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:39:57 -0400
>    From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> 
>    Hello,
> 
>    This modifies GDB's configure to build inf-ptrace.o whenever the ptrace 
>    call is available.  Thoughts?
> 
> I'm not sure.  On the one hand, yes, inf-ptrace should compile & link
> on any system that has ptrace.  On the other hand, actually using this
> stuff is still a per-target decision, and there are quite a few
> targets that have ptrace, but dont use it (Solaris, OSF/1, HP-UX).

FYI, it isn't _linked_, except on GDB executables that use it.

> I'm also thinking about the ultimate replacement of the makefile
> fragments in config/*/.  I think we should move towards a configure
> script where we can use wildcards to set some sensible defaults.
> There we'd have something like:
> 
> *-*-*bsd*)
>   native_sources="inf-ptrace.c bsd-nat.c"
>   ;;
> 
> *-*-linux*)
>   native_sources="inf-ptrace.c linux-nat.c"
>   ;;

Going forward we need to get GNU/Linux and other systems using procfs 
and an obvious migration path for that is to build support for both 
procfs and ptrace into a single GDB.  The default being to use ptrace.

> *-*-solaris*)
>   native_sources="inf-procfs.c"
>   ;;
> 
> I'm not strongly opposed to your patch (but you should look at it
> again, see the hunk below).  I also think that the logic that adds
> inf-ptrace.o / inf-ptrace.c doesn't belong in the "Checks for library
> functions" section.  I'd leave the AC_CHECK_FUNCS(ptrace) there
> (possibly grouping it together with the check for ttrace), and put the
> rest of the logic somewhere else.

Ah.  But where?  I couldn't find anywhere.

> Mark
> 
> 
>    @@ -532,6 +539,9 @@ if test -n "$[5]"; then
> 	[Define to the type of arg 5 for ptrace.])
>     fi
> 
>    +dnl If there is ptrace, add inf-ptrace to the compile list.
>    +
>    +

Oops.