From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Patch to support AMD64 Solaris 10
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:39:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <417D5622.1000304@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0410251739090.3442@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> This patch adds initial support for Solaris 10 on AMD64. The test results
> (debugging both 64-bit and 32-bit binaries) are fairly similar to those
> for unmodified GDB (built as 32-bit and debugging 32-bit binaries), though
> as the prerelease operating system isn't yet fully reliable running the
> GDB testsuite it's difficult to get full testsuite results for comparison.
>
> The configuration is based on the existing IA32 Solaris support.
Sigh, this is unfortunatly adding a further use of a deprecated
mechanism (DEPRECATED_TM_FILE) and a non strictly multi-arch port. I
assume it is largely for solib?
What about instead modifying things so that solib.c is always included
and have it locally handle the legacy #ifdef SOLIB_ADD et.al. case?
> A limitation of this patch is that GDB needs to be built as a 64-bit
> binary (configured with CC="gcc -m64": 32-bit compilation is the default
> for this system) to work on AMD64 Solaris; GDB built as a 32-bit binary
> doesn't work with this patch on AMD64 Solaris 10. The problem is that
> there is a single target triplet and so a single GDB configuration, but
> 64-bit GDB should be using the functions in amd64-sol2-nat.c added by this
> patch while 32-bit GDB (which in any case could only debug 32-bit
> binaries, but the operating system does support plain x86 systems as well
> as AMD64 ones, so such a GDB is desirable) should be using the functions
> in i386v4-nat.c. Any comments on the best approach for having the single
> configuration cleanly support being built as both 32-bit and 64-bit?
The 64-bit PPC GNU/Linux developers have the same problem.
It's really a top-level configure / config.guess issue so best rasied
there (gcc@?, config@?). By the time things get to GDB it's too late -
trying to switch to 'cc -m64' after the fact would leave us with BFD
built 'cc -m32' but with GDB built 'cc -m64'. Outch!
Andrew
PS: Suggest looking at inf-child and inf-ptrace. The use of nm-*.h and
macros to implement native configurations is also falling from favour.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-25 19:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-25 17:48 Joseph S. Myers
2004-10-25 19:39 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2004-10-25 19:55 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-10-25 22:03 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-10-26 19:44 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-10-26 20:50 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-10-30 19:57 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-10-30 20:01 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-11-01 16:43 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-11-01 20:08 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-11-01 20:34 ` Mark Kettenis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=417D5622.1000304@gnu.org \
--to=cagney@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox