Ping?

On 20.04.2020 12:30, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> Ping?
> 
> I rely on this patch with my other to be submitted code.
> 
> On 16.04.2020 23:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 16.04.2020 22:07, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>>>> ">" == Kamil Rytarowski <n54@gmx.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> All major BSDs implement PT_GET_PROCESS_STATE, but they differ in
>>>>> details and want to implement follow-fork functionality differently.
>>>
>>
>> Actually I was wrong in this detail. FreeBSD implements
>> PT_SET_EVENT_MASK, but not PT_GET_PROCESS_STATE.
>>
>>>>> gdb/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>>>> 	* inf-ptrace.h (follow_fork, insert_fork_catchpoint)
>>>>> 	(remove_fork_catchpoint, post_startup_inferior)
>>>>> 	(post_attach): Move...
>>>
>>> I guess these aren't used on Linux, but what about rs6000-nat.c?  Those
>>> are the only non-BSD users of inf_ptrace_target that I can see.
>>>
>>> I'm not a big fan of the current code, because makes methods conditional
>>> on this define.  It would be better I guess to have an intermediate
>>> subclass for this situation.  That would make it clear what code does or
>>> does not rely on this.
>>>
>>
>> Personally, I would like to see more separation of OS specific features
>> into OS-private files.
>>
>>> You don't have to do that, but I don't think we can put this in without
>>> knowing about the rs6000-nat case.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>
>> IBM RS/6000 is AIX and it does not support PT_GET_PROCESS_STATE. At
>> least not in the versions I could check.
>>
>> There was however support for PT_GET_PROCESS_STATE in HPUX, but HPUX
>> handling was removed from GDB in 2015.
>>
> 
>