From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1478 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2009 18:41:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 1466 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Oct 2009 18:41:50 -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 18:41:46 +0000 Received: from jupiter.vmware.com (mailhost5.vmware.com [10.16.68.131]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7700E13054; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by jupiter.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69BC7DC058; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AE49A38.2030801@vmware.com> Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:41:00 -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> <4AE3AA51.9020602@vmware.com> <200910250813.02107.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200910250813.02107.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/msg00629.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > On Sunday 25 October 2009 01:30:57, Michael Snyder wrote: >> 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. > > There wasn't that much discussion: > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-06/msg00149.html > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-05/msg00657.html > > > I major point I was trying to put across, and that I could have > been a bit more explicit is that, being able to be used > transparently of whatever's the process_stratum target > beneath (as opposed to only the native child target) > means "precord should be host independent". > >> 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. > > Huh. So? Does that mean we should break it and make it > impossible to test? I don't propose breaking it, simply setting it aside for now. My suggestion also does not prevent testing it - eg. with a remote target and i386-linux host. Anyway, right now I can see only two choices -- this, or reverting the prec-save change. I'm open to whichever one the group prefers.