Re: [PATCH] Please define thread_info as struct thread_info (and other stuff)

[Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>]

On 2018-12-20 17:34, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Svante" == Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> Svante> Seems like nothing is happening so far. Did you expect me to
> Svante> take action on this issue? Or is this a low-prio problem for
> Svante> you, Hurd being a second class citizen?
> 
> It's not so much second-class as that the usual way gdb development
> works is that ports need maintainers, and the current contributors are
> pretty busy and/or have other interests.

That's an important point.  For example, the Freebsd port is in pretty 
good shape, because somebody (thanks John) uses it daily and is able to 
report quickly any breakage to us non-Freebsd users.

I have tried earlier to give it a shot and build GDB using the image 
available here:

   https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/running/qemu.html

but couldn't get very far (apt-get install wouldn't work).  Or at least, 
is there an easy way to get a cross-compiling environment for 
Debian/Hurd, let's say on Debian/Linux stable?

> I took a quick look at it and one question I have is whether
> nm-i386gnu.h really needs to include any of the headers it does.  
> defs.h
> already includes unistd.h, and regcache.h should probably not be 
> needed;
> and removing the mach includes would at least reduce the number of 
> spots
> needing the "struct".  Could you try removing these lines?
> 
> Also I happened to notice that file declares gnu_target_pid_to_str --
> but I didn't see a definition.  So perhaps that could be removed as
> well.

And to answer Svante's question about "what to do next", I think the 
intention long term was to put all of gdb in its own namespace, 
initially for fixing some gnulib clashes.  That's what triggered Pedro 
to do some C++ improvements (including wild matching).  For more 
details, see this, around the 15:00 mark:

https://slideslive.com/38902352/gdb-c-conversion-dogfooding-c

Looks like the prototype he did is on this branch:

https://github.com/palves/gdb/commits/palves/cxx-gdb-namespace

If this would fix the Hurd case, then maybe we can go with this.  Pedro, 
do you think we would be ready for such a move?  I would prefer to do 
that than to re-add a ton of "struct" keywords.

Simon