From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-27252-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 31658 invoked by alias); 1 Jan 2007 16:33:04 -0000
Received: (qmail 31649 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jan 2007 16:33:03 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Jan 2007 16:32:58 +0000
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) 	(envelope-from <drow@nevyn.them.org>) 	id 1H1Q5n-0003bu-KI; Mon, 01 Jan 2007 11:32:55 -0500
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 16:33:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: John David Anglin <dave@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, brobecker@adacore.com, 	kettenis@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Likely obsolete pieces of GDB
Message-ID: <20070101163255.GA13802@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: John David Anglin <dave@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>, 	gdb@sourceware.org, dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, 	brobecker@adacore.com, kettenis@gnu.org
References: <20061220155817.GA14027@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> <200612201741.kBKHfD1T016509@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200612201741.kBKHfD1T016509@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2

On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 12:41:13PM -0500, John David Anglin wrote:
> > However, the test results aren't very good.  I've attached them.
> 
> Tried a simple test with this version.  Tried to debug gdb itself.
> Set a break on main and ran gdb with "-v".  The exterior gdb dumped
> core.  The cause seems to be that the deprecated_child_ops struct
> hasn't been initialized.  It looks like the stuff in inf-ptrace.c
> needs to be merged into hpux-thread.c, or we need to setup
> deprecated_child_ops.  Presumably, this was done at some point in
> the past.

Is this worth fixing?  Obviously no one has used it lately.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery