From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9531 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2004 23:42:14 -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 9521 invoked from network); 5 Oct 2004 23:42:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 Oct 2004 23:42:13 -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 i95NgDQt021729 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:42:13 -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 i95Ng2r15101; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:42:02 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA3428D2; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:41:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4163313C.9080106@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 23:42:00 -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: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Build inf-ptrace.o when ptrace available References: <415DC09D.2070407@gnu.org> <200410012154.i91Ls6lE001359@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <41615D1E.8070007@gnu.org> <20041004143416.GA6653@nevyn.them.org> <416179DE.70401@gnu.org> <20041004163533.GA12898@nevyn.them.org> <416323A7.2010201@gnu.org> <20041005225914.GA28588@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20041005225914.GA28588@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00103.txt.bz2 > On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 06:43:51PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>>> >We can't "get GNU/Linux [...] using procfs". >> >>> >>> Is there a technical problem blocking this? > > > The fact that the idea has been "under discussion but no one cares > enough to devote two months of programming to it" for at least three > years now? The fact that there's no obvious user-visible improvement > associated with the huge amount of kernel-side work involved? I think > those are technical problems. The're not.