Re: status of NTPL patches

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
 > On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 12:17:20PM -0400, J. Johnston wrote:
 > > 
 > > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
 > > >On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 08:48:04AM -0700, David Carlton wrote:
 > > >
 > > >>What's the status of the NTPL patches?  Are they all in mainline yet?
 > > >>I'm about to sync my branch with mainline, and I'm curious if I'm
 > > >>allowed to tell my local users that it's okay to use it with Red Hat
 > > >>9.0 yet.
 > > >
 > > >
 > > >I believe that it should work.
 > > >
 > > 
 > > They are all committed except for Michael's rewrite of the gcore patch 
 > > which I haven't
 > > seen a commit notice for yet.  I don't see any reason it can't be checked 
 > > in - Michael?
 > 
 > Do you mean:
 > 2003-06-19  Michael Snyder  <msnyder@redhat.com>
 > 
 >         * linux-nat.h: New file.
 >         * linux-nat.c: Include linux-nat.h.
 >         * lin-lwp.c: Include linux-nat.h.  
 >         Move struct lwp_info def to linux-nat.h.
 >         * linux-proc.c: Include linux-nat.h.  
 >         (linux_make_note_section): Iterate over lwps instead of threads.
 >         (linux_do_thread_registers): Use lwp instead of merged pid.
 >         * config/nm-linux.h: Move miscelaneous def'ns to linux-nat.h.
 >         * Makefile.in (lin-lwp.o, linux-proc.o, linux-nat.o): 
 >         Add dependency on linux_nat_h.
 > 
 > ?
 > 
 > 
 > > There is also an unresolved issue with gdbserver.
 > 
 > That's a bit of an understatement... well, hopefully it won't be too
 > hard, but I won't have time to look at it for another project or two.
 > 
 > -- 
 > Daniel Jacobowitz
 > MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


Hold tight, I am about done with another round of ala-mec-testing on
RHL9 with gdb HEAD and gdb6. I should have something later today.
But yes, they should work, modulus a little patch I am about to post.

elena