From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8106 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2007 17:50:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 8094 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Mar 2007 17:50:21 -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 17:50:16 +0000 Received: from raven.inka.de (uucp@[127.0.0.1]) by mail.inka.de with uucp (rmailwrap 0.5) id 1HU4wv-0007RT-6T; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:50:13 +0100 Received: by raven.inka.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 464B93AA96; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:45:09 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:50:00 -0000 From: Josef Wolf To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Definition of PT_TEXT_ADDR and friends. Message-ID: <20070321174509.GG26951@raven.wolf.local> Mail-Followup-To: Josef Wolf , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20070320064456.GE26951@raven.wolf.local> <20070320105618.GA24723@caradoc.them.org> <20070321071411.GF26951@raven.wolf.local> <20070321111657.GC27561@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070321111657.GC27561@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/msg00256.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 07:16:57AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > 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. I was confused, so don't be surprised :-) Every architecture has its own implementation. > > 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 don't see how uclibc can provide them without kernel support. > > > (I know the __UCLIBC_HAS_MMU__ is out of date - I'm going to fix that 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. Shouldn't the kernel headers provide some appropriate macro? There seem to exist a CONFIG_MMU macro, but this is only checked and never set.