From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Moving Linux-specific stuff out of i386-tdep.c Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 00:00:00 -0000 Message-id: <38C7AFC7.9F29EE49@cygnus.com> References: <200003082121.e28LLRu05681@delius.kettenis.local> X-SW-Source: 2000-q1/msg00646.html Mark Kettenis wrote: > 1. Do we still care about the filename limits of older System V > systems? i386-linux-nat.c is longer than 14 characters which is a > no-no according to the GNU conding standards. Per other e-mail: no but (8.3 :-) > 2. Should I postpone creating the new -tdep.c file until after the > release or not. Andrew has been telling us to avoid gratuitous > changes to make it easier to apply outstanding patches. But on the > other hand, after 5.0 is released, I hope to see a lot new patches > generated against 5.0. So creating the new file before 5.0 would > make applying those new patches a lot easier. I guess its the sigtramp stuff. If the checkin was a straight cut/paste (without edits) I won't notice :-) Down the track, there will need to be ``i386-linux-tdep.h'' so that i386-linux-nat.c can include it. (Hmm, with i386-linux-tdep.c, no wonder Eli raised a concern). Andrew >From ac131313@cygnus.com Sat Apr 01 00:00:00 2000 From: Andrew Cagney To: Benjamin Kosnik Cc: gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: --target=powerpc-elf broken in current sources? Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 00:00:00 -0000 Message-id: <38A8A385.24864EC4@cygnus.com> References: <200002150036.QAA14529@haight.constant.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-q1/msg00273.html Content-length: 346 Benjamin Kosnik wrote: > > configuring a cross compiler on x86-linux for powerpc-elf, I get this: > > ../../../src.gdb_binutils_orig/sim/ppc/mon.c:273: `RUSAGE_SELF' undeclared (first use in this function) > ?? That sounds like a problem specific to a particular version of linux. Have you tried a build on an older linux release? Andrew >From ezannoni@cygnus.com Sat Apr 01 00:00:00 2000 From: Elena Zannoni To: Kevin Buettner Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: arguments to add-symbol-file Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 00:00:00 -0000 Message-id: <14554.48522.187490.733204@kwikemart.cygnus.com> References: <14554.41686.732151.870885@kwikemart.cygnus.com> <1000324000053.ZM31438@ocotillo.lan> X-SW-Source: 2000-q1/msg00785.html Content-length: 1371 Kevin Buettner writes: > On Mar 23, 6:03pm, Elena Zannoni wrote: > > > Why when we use > > > > add-symbol-file 0x1000 0x2000 0x3000 > > > > gdb ends up with the following addrs structure, which includes explicit > > entries for .text, .data, and .bss section, plus the same 3 entries > > repeated in the 'other' array? > > > > Would it make sense to have only the 'other' part, or not include > > those three in 'other'? > > I think it'd make sense to only have the `other' part. > > BTW, did you notice the following comment from symfile.h? > > /* Add the section to the others even if it is a > text data or bss section. This is redundent but > eventually, none will be given special treatment */ > And this one in symfile.c: /* FIXME: These sections will not need special treatment because ALL sections are in the other sections table */ All the relevant code is structured like this: if ( this is .text ) do something if ( this is .data ) do something if ( this is .bss ) do something for ( all in others ) do something Where 'something' is pretty much the same set of instructions. > I think you should ask Fred about it. (There's probably some reason > why it'll be non-trivial to fix.) > Yes, that's why I was puzzled. > Kevin Elena >From guo@cup.hp.com Sat Apr 01 00:00:00 2000 From: Jimmy Guo To: "Daniel Berlin+list.gdb-patches" Cc: gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: C++ Overload testsuite fixes, need someone to verify Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 00:00:00 -0000 Message-id: References: X-SW-Source: 2000-q1/msg00787.html Content-length: 681 >Can someone verify, that i am correct in thinking you get unexpected >failures in gdb.c++/ovldbreak.exp due to "breakpoint info" failures? >I have a patch, i just want to make sure it's not me. >It appears the source line the test suite expects main to appear on >in that file is 49, and main really appears at 48, so the regex to >match doesn't work. I diffed the ovldbreak.cc file, and i get no >differences. I think it should report 49, not 48. Line 49 is the first executable statement of main. I'm using the HP WDB source, in case you cannot see such behavior with sourceware's (in that case I will spend some time digging up the fix to submit as a patch). - Jimmy Guo