From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1990 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2009 22:55:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 1977 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2009 22:55:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:55:05 +0000 Received: (qmail 22476 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2009 22:55:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 9 Feb 2009 22:55:03 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Doug Evans Subject: Re: new siginfo support doesn't build on glibc 2.2.2 Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:55:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: gdb@sourceware.org References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200902092255.03612.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 On Monday 09 February 2009 21:07:41, Doug Evans wrote: > fyi, glibc 2.2.2 doesn't have si_timerid, si_overrun. compilation of > amd64-linux-nat.c fails. Bummer. According to sigaction(2), those exist only since kernel 2.6. Those are defines, we could #ifdef on them, assuming we're ok with a gdb built on that platform and then moved to some more recent glibc will not translate those fields. I don't know if the siginfo layout in that version is the same as defined by the gdbarch callback, or even if your glibc's siginfo_t declaration matches your kernel's siginfo_t object layout --- there's a history of breakage on these matters. > Dunno how old a glibc we intend to support for 7.0. Could you try ifdefing those fields, and see what comes out of $_siginfo; and taking a peek at your headers, to see if we're doing something reasonable? We have a couple of siginfo related testcases that may help as small test apps. -- Pedro Alves