From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8494 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2007 11:17:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 8485 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Mar 2007 11:17:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from return.false.org (HELO return.false.org) (66.207.162.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:17:04 +0000 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FA4F4B26D; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 06:17:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1405F4B262; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 06:16:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HTyoM-0007F1-0m; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:16:58 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:17:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Josef Wolf , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Definition of PT_TEXT_ADDR and friends. Message-ID: <20070321111657.GC27561@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Josef Wolf , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20070320064456.GE26951@raven.wolf.local> <20070320105618.GA24723@caradoc.them.org> <20070321071411.GF26951@raven.wolf.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070321071411.GF26951@raven.wolf.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14+cvs20070313 (2007-03-13) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00249.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:14:12AM +0100, Josef Wolf wrote: > At least for uClinux, ptrace() is hardwired to the same values as in > linux-low.c. For all architectures, really? I'm surprised. > 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. uClibc or the kernel. It's not GDB's business to keep track of that. > > (I know the __UCLIBC_HAS_MMU__ is out of date - I'm going to fix that 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? You configure it :-) But they've renamed the configuration macro recently. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery