From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: gdb@thewrittenword.com
To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [5.1] Re: status of gdb on Tru64 5.1?
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 07:47:00 -0000
Message-id: <20010927094722.C89616@oolong.il.thewrittenword.com>
References: <95C2153C4FD3D311B34D0008C786B0AE8780C6@exchkc01.stowers-institute.org> <3BB2A775.3000108@cygnus.com> <20010927100310.B21075@act-europe.fr>
X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00243.html

On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 10:03:10AM +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > Is there an update on this? I.e. does GDB work on True64?  (hmm, 
> > perhaphs, I've already asked this question).
> 
> I recently sent the following message to somebody enquiring the status
> of GDB on Tru64:
> <<
> > Does anyone know if/when the tru64 5.1 patch for gdb will be added?  I just
> > pulled down the latest CVS and it's not in there.
> 
> I am not clear about the patch you are talking about. The first patch I
> submitted for Tru64 5.1 did not meet the GDB standards. For one thing, I
> had to break it down into smaller pieces. But most of the important
> changes were better done by Nick Duffeck, so his changes were checked
> in, and I only integrated small pieces that his patch did not contain.
>       
> > Alternatively, if Joel's patch works, can one of you send me the
> > alpha-osf5.mh patch (or diff from alpha-osf3.mh)?  (It wasn't included in
> > Joel's original post.)
>       
> The bad news is that I just tried today's snapshot and I also failed to
> build it. I don't think this is because of the lack of the
> alpha-osf5.mh. For me, the build failed in alpha-nat.c, where it fails
> to find the EF_* macros. This is probably a minor problem, these macros
> are defined inside /usr/include/machine/reg.h (BTW, on our machine,
> "machine" is actually a link to "alpha"). And it is #include'd from
> alpha-nat.c, they are just conditionalized by
> 
>    #if defined(_KERNEL) || defined(_EXCEPTION_FRAME)

There is one #define that changed with 5.1 (from <machine/reg.h>:
#undef EF_SP                    /* r30: stack pointer (see note above) */

And the "note above" says:
 * Note that the presence of a definition for EF_SP is used by locore.s
 * to determine whether M_SP should be specified in ".mask" directives,
 * and the setting of this bit 30 in the relevant procedure descriptor
 * "regmask" is the basis for debuggers to interpret kernel exception
 * frames in the old (33-quadword) or new (32-quadword) format.

So, just -D_EXCEPTION_FRAME isn't the only fix.

-- 
albert chin (china@thewrittenword.com)