Re: status of NTPL patches

Elena Zannoni
2003-06-27T16:36:59Z

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