Re: Linux threads support

[Mark Kettenis <kettenis@wins.uva.nl>]

   Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:57:02 -0400
   From: Christopher Blizzard <blizzard@redhat.com>

   I'm not an expert on gdb but I can say from experience is that if you 
   don't check it in where people have to fall all over themselves to not 
   use it, it won't get tested.

OK, if I don't hear any objections soon, I'll check the stuff in this
weekend.

Mark
From ac131313@cygnus.com Wed Aug 30 01:16:00 2000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Switching to the Lesser GPL
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 01:16:00 -0000
Message-id: <39ACC1AB.6C40AE63@cygnus.com>
References: <39AC66CE.97B04D5F@apple.com>
X-SW-Source: 2000-08/msg00162.html
Content-length: 1210

Stan Shebs wrote:

> mmalloc is straightforward; the only consideration might be
> whether we ought to convert it to GPL, much as readline has
> been switched from LGPL to GPL (go to gnu.org licensing pages
> for the whole story).

Done deal.  I've personally no opinion on what the licence should be
changed to.  If the trend is GPL then, it can follow.

> libiberty seems like it should stay LGPL; the main trick here
> is to coordinate with GCC, since all the "GNU Library..." strings
> in source files change to "GNU Lesser...", thus most files will
> be touched.

Co-ordinate or pass the buck? :-)  I think the group that should decide
LIBIBERTY's licence is BINUTILS/BFD.  It will affect them the most. 
However, I suspect that they would appreciate any help in walking any
changes through the GCC source tree (which contains much of the official
libiberty) and thence to binutils/gdb.

> sim/ppc is entirely GPL, except for one little file words.h.
> If Andrew is agreeable, I suggest making it GPL too, and dropping
> the LGPL from that dir entirely.

FYI, I started out having PSIM LGPL but then changed my mind.  It would
appear that I never got around to fixing words.h. It can be changed.

	Andrew
From dj@delorie.com Wed Aug 30 05:45:00 2000
From: DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com>
To: gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Switching to the Lesser GPL
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 05:45:00 -0000
Message-id: <39ACFF5D.B7AF8B21@delorie.com>
References: <39AC66CE.97B04D5F@apple.com> <39ACC1AB.6C40AE63@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2000-08/msg00163.html
Content-length: 607

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > libiberty seems like it should stay LGPL; the main trick here
> > is to coordinate with GCC, since all the "GNU Library..." strings
> > in source files change to "GNU Lesser...", thus most files will
> > be touched.
> 
> Co-ordinate or pass the buck? :-)

You may pass me the buck, as long as a patch is attached to it ;-)

I agree it should remain LGPL; changing a license is a much
bigger problem than changing the wording of an existing license.
If you think it should be GPL, start a separate discussion on the
gcc, gdb, cygwin, newlib, and binutils mailing lists.
From mark@acceleratednetworks.com Wed Aug 30 12:29:00 2000
From: Mark De Lange <mark@acceleratednetworks.com>
To: "Gdb Mailing List (E-mail)" <gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com>
Subject: GDB 5.0 and vxworks and NT
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:29:00 -0000
Message-id: <E9C3C1CE1A4BD411BD2B00A0CC7340C4213AB8@calvin.acceleratednetworks.com>
X-SW-Source: 2000-08/msg00164.html
Content-length: 108

Is there anyone out there who has this combination working?  I'd appreciate
any info if you do.
Thanks
Mark
From sbjohnson@ozemail.com.au Wed Aug 30 21:40:00 2000
From: Steven Johnson <sbjohnson@ozemail.com.au>
To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Register Cache.
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 21:40:00 -0000
Message-id: <39ADDEAC.38565673@ozemail.com.au>
References: <8AE4B526B977D411841F00A0CC334020052C28@cuz-exchange.sdesigns.net> <39AC598A.DFAF67E9@ozemail.com.au>
X-SW-Source: 2000-08/msg00165.html
Content-length: 932

I Want to change the way GDB Caches Registers by doing the following:

1. Add a Cache Type entry so that each register can be set (via a gdb command)
to be read cached, write cached or no cache. By default it would be read/write
cache enabled as is the case now.

2. Add a command to flush GDB's knowledge of the cache.

My Questions are:

1. Does anyone have any input they would like to add to this?
2. What sort of command should they be maintenance, data or set commands.

I Would like to have commands like this:
set register-cache $r5 read
set register-cache $r5 write
set register-cache $r5 rw
set register-cache $r5 disabled

and another command

maintenance register-cache flush

This raises another question:

3. How do i look up the $r5 in the command and turn it into a register number?

I tried finding the code the interprets:
set $r5=0

to see how it did it, but it's obscure and I couldn't find it.

Steven Johnson.
From micrio@mv.com Thu Aug 31 05:50:00 2000
From: "Peter Reilley" <micrio@mv.com>
To: "Steven Johnson" <sbjohnson@ozemail.com.au>, <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Register Cache.
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 05:50:00 -0000
Message-id: <000c01c01349$fdc7e450$05d145cc@ppro>
X-SW-Source: 2000-08/msg00166.html
Content-length: 1302

Those look good to me.   I would like to see a
command that would set the cache state of all
registers with a single command.

Pete.


-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Johnson <sbjohnson@ozemail.com.au>
To: gdb@sources.redhat.com <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2000 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: Register Cache.


>I Want to change the way GDB Caches Registers by doing the following:
>
>1. Add a Cache Type entry so that each register can be set (via a gdb
command)
>to be read cached, write cached or no cache. By default it would be
read/write
>cache enabled as is the case now.
>
>2. Add a command to flush GDB's knowledge of the cache.
>
>My Questions are:
>
>1. Does anyone have any input they would like to add to this?
>2. What sort of command should they be maintenance, data or set commands.
>
>I Would like to have commands like this:
>set register-cache $r5 read
>set register-cache $r5 write
>set register-cache $r5 rw
>set register-cache $r5 disabled
>
>and another command
>
>maintenance register-cache flush
>
>This raises another question:
>
>3. How do i look up the $r5 in the command and turn it into a register
number?
>
>I tried finding the code the interprets:
>set $r5=0
>
>to see how it did it, but it's obscure and I couldn't find it.
>
>Steven Johnson.
>