From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31033 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2008 19:16:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 31025 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jun 2008 19:16:41 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:16:24 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8F72A965C for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Pk4FdJ+qH1m2 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047172A963A for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8C909E7ACD; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:16:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:16:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: gnulib dependency in gdbserver Message-ID: <20080625191621.GI3700@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2008-06/txt/msg00256.txt.bz2 I just realized that gdbserver now depends on ../gnulib. The problem is ../gnulib has been configured by and for gdb, not gdbserver. So if one wants to just build gdbserver, or if the host/target configuration for gdb and gdbserver are different, then things may not work. In my particular case, I'm working on a GDB hosted on Solaris cross ppc-lynxos, and then cross-build gdbserver to run on ppc-lynxos. I get an error because the stdint.h file doesn't work (SIZE_MAX is missing). I don't see any other way but making an additional copy of gnulib inside gdbserver. I really hate the idea; even though it seems that this is the way that the project was designed to be used, it means that we have to be careful to update two copies if a file is duplicated twice... Any suggestion? Thanks, -- Joel