From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22266 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2010 21:44:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 22257 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jan 2010 21:44:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:44:39 +0000 Received: (qmail 16145 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2010 21:44:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.9.129?) (daniel@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 12 Jan 2010 21:44:37 -0000 Message-ID: <4B4CED3C.80206@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:44:00 -0000 From: Daniel Gutson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Jan Kratochvil , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcore fix for native gdb on solaris References: <4AF9E5BD.3030900@codesourcery.com> <20100111162807.GB13820@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100112033905.GI2007@adacore.com> <20100112122623.GA1350@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100112132335.GN2007@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20100112132335.GN2007@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2010-01/txt/msg00317.txt.bz2 Hi Joel, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> I was not somehow sure whether it is expected and I also wanted to make some >> heads-up whether _STRUCTURED_PROC #defines aren't now obsoleted in proc*.c >> files (I do not know if they are or not). > > It isn't, as far as I know. I thought I had seen on Solaris 10 > that _STRUCTURED_PROC was always assumed, but upon double-checking, > it appears not so. In any case, the only risk is with old versions > of Solaris where _STRUCTURED_PROC is ignored - we might have a build > failure because we expected to have elfcore_write_lwpstatus, whereas > bfd only provided elfcore_write_lpstatus... I doubt it; my guess is > NEW_PROC_API would not be defined on these systems. > I'm becoming up to date with this thread. Is there anything pending from me to do, any commit, any validation? FWIW, I already checked it for sparc-solaris. Thanks! Daniel. -- Daniel Gutson CodeSourcery www.codesourcery.com