From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30222 invoked by alias); 4 Oct 2004 16:18:04 -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 30191 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2004 16:18:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Oct 2004 16:18:03 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i94GHr7v019775 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 12:17:58 -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 i94GHqr29065; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 12:17:52 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C6C28D2; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 12:17:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4161779F.4050607@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:18:00 -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: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Build inf-ptrace.o when ptrace available References: <415DC09D.2070407@gnu.org> <20041003145013.GA14842@nevyn.them.org> <41615EA5.8050803@gnu.org> <20041004143443.GB6653@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20041004143443.GB6653@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00053.txt.bz2 > On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 10:31:01AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>>> >On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 04:39:57PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: >>>> > >>> >>>>>> >>>Hello, >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>This modifies GDB's configure to build inf-ptrace.o whenever the ptrace >>>>>> >>>call is available. Thoughts? >>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >I think this only makes sense as part of the removal of NATDEPFILES, >>>> >and that it doesn't make sense without the context of how you plan to >>>> >remove the other members of NATDEPFILES. Since we're still going to >>>> >need a way to specify the native configuration files, why bother? >> >>> >>> See Mark's e-mail (and it is easier than remembering which NATDEPFILES >>> need it). > > > I think that's a non-issue. You don't need to remember it - either > it's there or it isn't. It is, when you're the one trying to keep track of all the *.nm files and their systems as they get migrated to inf-ptrace. Andrew