From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 99527 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2019 14:27:31 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 99519 invoked by uid 89); 3 Jun 2019 14:27:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=pm, UD:p.m, p.m X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:27:29 +0000 Received: from [172.16.0.120] (192-222-181-218.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.181.218]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CD161E623; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:27:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] Let's discuss moving gdbserver to top-level To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20190530213046.20542-1-tom@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <5e3c0a94-773c-4ea7-0d25-87c5273c52f5@simark.ca> Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:27:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190530213046.20542-1-tom@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-06/txt/msg00024.txt.bz2 On 2019-05-30 5:30 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote: > I've wanted to move gdbserver to the top-level for a while now. I > think it will provide a decent benefit, mainly by letting gdb and > gdbserver share their libiberty, gnulib, and "common" libraries -- > shaving off some build time. It also will have the nice side effect > of simplifying gdbserver's Makefile, fixing some existing bugs. > > I have written the patches to do this, but before reworking them into > submittable form, I thought I'd send a couple of initial patches and > start a discussion. > > This short series removes a couple of barriers to turning "common" > into a library. These are pretty much the only changes that could be > sent in isolation. > > The rest of the series is: > > * Move gnulib to the top-level > * Rename "common" to "gdbsupport" in preparation for a move > * Move "gdbsupport" to top-level > * Move gdbserver to top-level > * Make gdbserver share the other top-level libraries > > Most of the patches are pretty mechanical. There are one or two > hacks, primarily because this series doesn't move the "nat" directory. > > Let me know what you think. > > Tom Just some questions about how things will work after such a move (at least, how it is in your branch). I suppose that there will be a top-level --enable-gdbserver/--disable-gdbserver. switch like there is for other components? If so, what happens if you do something like ./configure --host=x86 --target=arm --enable-gdb --enable-gdbserver ? Currently, if the host and target architectures are different, gdbserver won't be built (this check is done in gdb/configure.ac:2181). Is gdbserver silently skipped, or does it error out saying that you can't enable gdbserver if host != target? Do you know about anything else in the binutils-gdb tree that is built to run on the target? Simon