From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29306 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2013 16:14:18 -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 29291 invoked by uid 89); 20 Aug 2013 16:14:17 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:14:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7KGEEZA021501 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 12:14:14 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-142.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.142]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7KGEDGZ031541 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 12:14:13 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: lgustavo@codesourcery.com Cc: "'gdb-patches\@sourceware.org'" , Pedro Alves Subject: Re: [PATCH, v2] Share ptrace options discovery/linux native code between GDB and gdbserver References: <5212A9E1.6030707@codesourcery.com> <87d2p8id9f.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <52138F32.3020601@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:14:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <52138F32.3020601@codesourcery.com> (Luis Machado's message of "Tue, 20 Aug 2013 12:45:54 -0300") Message-ID: <8761v0ibl7.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00545.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Luis" == Luis Machado writes: Luis> Right. Should i move it now as part of this cleanup or should i move Luis> it in a follow up? Probably preferable as a follow-up. Or a prequel. >> Also, doesn't this check need to be done in gdbserver as well? Luis> For gdbserver we explicitly define the correct types for each argument. Ok, I see. Luis> Since this is a runtime check, we may run into issues if we attempt to Luis> run a binary on a build machine if the target machine is from a Luis> different architecture. Does it make sense? I looks like an AC_TRY_COMPILE check to me. That means it is safe. However, if it isn't needed for gdbserver, then the point is moot. Tom