Re: [RFA] Darwin Port (Part 1: changes in common files)

[Stan Shebs <stanshebs@earthlink.net>]

Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> From: Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com>
>> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:20:41 +0100
>>
>> diff -c -r1.101 configure.host
>> *** configure.host	19 Jan 2008 15:03:50 -0000	1.101
>> --- configure.host	10 Nov 2008 10:19:14 -0000
>> ***************
>> *** 62,67 ****
>> --- 62,69 ----
>>
>>    case "${host}" in
>>
>> + *-apple-darwin*)	gdb_host=macosx ;;
>> +
>>    alpha*-*-osf[3456789]*)	gdb_host=alpha-osf3 ;;
>>    alpha*-*-linux*)	gdb_host=alpha-linux ;;
>>    alpha*-*-freebsd* | alpha*-*-kfreebsd*-gnu)
>>     
>
> I know Apple doesn't want you to run their OS on non-Apple hardware,
> but I don't think we should reinforce that standpoint.  Could we just
> match *-*-darwin*?
>   
I agree.
> Also, I'm a bit confused by the Darwin vs. MacOS X naming game.  I
> realize it would be quite a bit of work, but to me it would make sense
> to exclusively use Darwin in comments, function names and file names
> (appropriately capitalized).
>   
Yes, we should be using "Darwin" everywhere in sources, file names, etc. 
"Mac OS X" refers to the total package that Apple delivers, with Aqua, 
Finder, etc, while Darwin is kernel + Unix-style tools. Darwin is fully 
functional by itself, and to the casual user would look nearly identical 
to FreeBSD. There shouldn't be anything in FSF GDB that depends on 
non-Darwin OS X bits; there wasn't anything like that in Apple's GDB 
either, at least in the past. (Apple's GDB is inconsistent about 
"darwin" vs "macosx", not least because it predates the creation of the 
Darwin project.)
> Why do you need both Darwin and Darwin64?  We don't do this for other
> operating systems that have both a 32-bit and a 64-bit variant.
>
>   
This may or may not be necessary - the ABIs are different, and both 
32-bit and 64-bit executables can be run at the same time by the same 
kernel, no rebooting needed. So a GDB session does have to distinguish 
the two types of executables.

Stan