From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1759 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2002 18:28:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1726 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2002 18:28:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Apr 2002 18:28:09 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA29541; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:28:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CBB18DA.A1C71349@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:28:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: "Dr. Jochen =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=F6hrig?=" , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: S/390 Linux doesn't link on trunk References: <20020407173859.A31836@nevyn.them.org> <02041519022500.02708@kontiki> <20020415131111.A23109@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00257.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 07:02:25PM +0200, Dr. Jochen Röhrig wrote: > > The problem arises from the unconditional definition of > > CHILD_PID_TO_EXEC_FILE at the end of config/nm-linux.h. According to the > > CVS-log this was added in Revision 1.11 of config/nm-linux.h on January, 8th. > > There were also changes made in config//linux.mh for some architectures > > (linking with linux-proc.o), which, as far as I can judge it, avoid the above > > described problem on theses architectures. However s390 (and, as it seems, > > some other architectures), doesn't have a config//linux.mh so no > > modifications were made for s390. > > > > My question now: are we missing something for s390 because we don't have the > > config/s390/linux.mh-file or are the changes to config/s390/nm-linux.h that I > > described above a correct solution for the problem? Or would it instead be a > > better solution to add a "NATDEPFILES += linux-proc.o" to config/s390/s390.mh? > > Aha! That's a good solution. A better one is to kill > config/s390/s390.mh, create config/s390/linux.mh, and use that instead. > That's much more accurate and will help prevent this sort of error > recurring. > > Michael, sound right to you? I can't think of any reason not to use > linux-proc.o on S/390. So long as /proc works as advertised on s390/Linux, sure, go for it.