From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3325 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2002 17:34:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 3294 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2002 17:34:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Nov 2002 17:34:24 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18Bgo5-0000Ad-00; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:34:41 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18Bewn-0001of-00; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:35:33 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:34:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [5.3] Does GDB build on GNU/Linux s390? Message-ID: <20021112173533.GA6841@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <3DD12FB1.8010409@redhat.com> <20021112165506.GA4176@nevyn.them.org> <3DD13591.9020702@redhat.com> <20021112171354.GA5385@nevyn.them.org> <3DD13A97.3040704@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DD13A97.3040704@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00121.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:29:59PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:08:33PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >>>On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:43:29AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>> > > > >>>>See: > >>>>http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gdb&pr=513 > >>>> > >>>>Is anyone able to confirm / deny that GDB can be built on GNU/Linux > >>s390? > > > >>> > >>> > >>>Well, it built on S/390 on 8/18... I haven't tried since then, however. > > > >> > >>(18/8) that's good enough for me. > > > > > >Except the PR you just closed is a different problem than gdb/513 > >was... > > The bug report was against GDB 5.2.1 and s390. That will never build so > I don't see any reason for leaving it open. If it turns out that GDB > 5.3 branch doesn't build on s390 GNU/Linux then, I'm pretty sure, we'll > get a new bug report. The file he was reporting a bug on has not changed noticeably since 5.2.1, nor have any of its headers. If the definitions were missing on his system they will still be missing, and we need to figure out where to get them. It's hardly a duplicate report. Also, I though 5.2.1 _did_ used to build on S/390... -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer