From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32021 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2007 07:20:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 32008 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Mar 2007 07:20:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from quechua.inka.de (HELO mail.inka.de) (193.197.184.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:20:16 +0000 Received: from raven.inka.de (uucp@[127.0.0.1]) by mail.inka.de with uucp (rmailwrap 0.5) id 1HTv7F-00011T-4T; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:20:13 +0100 Received: by raven.inka.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 487773AA88; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:14:12 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:20:00 -0000 From: Josef Wolf To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Definition of PT_TEXT_ADDR and friends. Message-ID: <20070321071411.GF26951@raven.wolf.local> Mail-Followup-To: Josef Wolf , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20070320064456.GE26951@raven.wolf.local> <20070320105618.GA24723@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070320105618.GA24723@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-03/txt/msg00243.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 06:56:18AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 07:44:56AM +0100, Josef Wolf wrote: > > When compiling gdb for uClinux with armnommu, I noticed that (in > > linux-low.c) PT_TEXT_ADDR, PT_DATA_ADDR and PT_TEXT_END_ADDR are > > defined only when __mcoldfire__ is defined. I think this is wrong. > > Instead, IMHO, it should always be defined when we have linux without > > a mmu. > > > > Comments? > > /* These should really be defined in the kernel's ptrace.h header. */ > > We don't know what to define them _to_ on other platforms. If you > have another platform which fails to define them in the kernel > headers, we can add another case. At least for uClinux, ptrace() is hardwired to the same values as in linux-low.c. So probably the comment is right and the defined should be moved into uClinux's uc0-patch. But I don't see why the dependency on uclibc define. > (I know the __UCLIBC_HAS_MMU__ is out of date - I'm going to fix that > today) Hmmm, what's the correct way to find out whether the cpu has mmu without uclibc? How does uclibc find out?