From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10561 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2009 01:38:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 10547 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Oct 2009 01:38:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:38:03 +0000 Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D5712001C; Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6345CCD9A5; Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AE3AA51.9020602@vmware.com> Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:38:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFA] Makefile.in, linux.mh: Move Process Record to NATDEPFILES References: <4AE1CF46.7030106@vmware.com> <200910231711.48441.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200910231711.48441.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00618.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > On Friday 23 October 2009 16:44:06, Michael Snyder wrote: >> Hey folks, we ran into a bunch of build problems because record.c >> was being compiled in a lot of builds where it wasn't needed (or >> tested). >> >> This change will make record.c be like gcore.c, in that it is only >> built if the target config files explicitly call for it. > > (You mean the host config file.) > > No. We had designed record_stratum so that it could be used > transparently of whatever's the process_stratum target beneath, which > allows precord to work against remote (gdbserver) and sim, e.g., > moxie precord support. Hmmm, ok -- I must not have followed that discussion closely. I don't think the fact that precord can work against whatever target is beneath it has been widely advertised yet. It certainly hasn't been widely tested, eg. against remote. I appreciate the desire, but is it ready for prime time? Perhaps, as a compromise, we could link record.o against all gdbs that currently link against gcore.o? Which would include most linuxen, many freebsd, and both i386 and sparc solaris? > >> For this patch, I've only included record.c for i386-linux. >> We can add amd64-linux in a separate patch if we decide it is >> ready. I should have gone on to say, and then add more hosts as and when they are ready (assuming they also support gcore).