From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17559 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2013 01:47:44 -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 17538 invoked by uid 89); 4 Sep 2013 01:47:43 -0000 Received: from mail-lb0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-lb0-f169.google.com) (209.85.217.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 04 Sep 2013 01:47:43 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_THREADED,NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-lb0-f169.google.com Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id z5so4982834lbh.14 for ; Tue, 03 Sep 2013 18:47:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.7.8 with SMTP id f8mr213059laa.31.1378259258527; Tue, 03 Sep 2013 18:47:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.130.194 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 18:47:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <877geyhx1j.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> References: <87txi2i6t6.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> <5225C3C6.8090101@redhat.com> <877geyhx1j.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> From: Yue Lu Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 01:47:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Port gdbserver to GNU/Hurd To: Thomas Schwinge Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches , Luis Machado , bug-hurd@gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00120.txt.bz2 Hi, On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Thomas Schwinge w= rote: > Hi! > > On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 12:11:02 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 09/03/2013 10:38 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >> > [strategy] >> >> I've been thinking about this this morning, after seeing these >> patches. >> >> For new gdbserver ports, this path just seems to swim further away from >> a full sharing approach, by adding lots duplication as first step, [...] > >> So my idea would be, [...] > > Understood, and yes, your argumentation is reasonable. > >> I'd do this [by] >> literally moving gdbserver/gnu-low.c on top of gdb/gnu-nat.c (etc.), and >> use git diff to guide me through, in identifying what would need to >> be restored, and guarded with #if[n]def GDBSERVER. [...] > > Yes, that's a nice technique for displaying and integrating the > differences between the existing Hurd native port's files and the new > gdbserver port's. Yue, does the approach of diffing the files as Pedro > described make sense to you? Please tell if you need help with how to > use Git to do that, etc. Yeah, I will do that. But in my understand, I will use diff gnu-low.c ../gnu-nat.c and something like this. But I don't know how to use git do this. Like git diff a.c b.c? BTW, I got these patches by git diff > gdb.patch. Then I edit the patch to two file. When I use git format-patch I will get a patche for each commit after the early_commit. What is the better way you generate patches? --=20 Yue Lu (=E9=99=86=E5=B2=B3)