Re: GDB record patch 0.1.3.1 for GDB-6.8 release

[Tea <teawater@gmail.com>]

Agree with Daniel.
I think current way is better than include Linux kernel header files.

To compile GDB with Linux KERNEL? I think it will make compile GDB not
very easy. If the Linux Kernel change. The user need re-compile the
GDB?
Or add Linux Kernel files to GDB directory? It looks not very
professional. And maybe will cause some copyright problem.

And this types size will not change very continually. The GLIBC use it
too. The kernel more like add new types than change the old types.

Of course, add more comments for these size #define are needed. It is
a big job for me. It make me crazy in before. :)

Thanks,
teawater



On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 5:29 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 06:19:15PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > I wonder if there is a way to get these sizes by including the Linux
> > kernel header files? The way it is done here looks very fragile and tied
> > to a specific Linux kernel version to me...
> >
> > Granted, using kernel includes will still be fragile and
> > version-specific, but at least to update GDB only a recompile is needed,
> > as oposed to manually figuring out and editing these #defines.
>
> No, this way is better.  These are not types used internally by the
> kernel; they're part of its public interface and will not change.
> And the headers are in good shape nowadays but the clean headers are
> not universally available yet.
>
>
> --
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> CodeSourcery