x86_64-elf gdb

x86_64-elf gdb

[Joel Sherrill]

Hi

I was looking at getting the x86_64-elf tools up as baseline for
getting them up for RTEMS. There isn't a gdb target for this now
in gdb/configure.tgt.  This appeared to be the minimal set of files
to add for the -elf and -rtems configuration:

x86_64-*-elf* | x86_64-*-rtems*)
     gdb_target_obs="amd64-tdep.o i386-tdep.o i387-tdep.o i386bsd-tdep.o"
     ;;

It wouldn't build gdb for x86_64-elf before and at least now, it does build.

Comments?

-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available                (256) 722-9985

Re: x86_64-elf gdb

[Joel Brobecker]

> I was looking at getting the x86_64-elf tools up as baseline for
> getting them up for RTEMS. There isn't a gdb target for this now
> in gdb/configure.tgt.  This appeared to be the minimal set of files
> to add for the -elf and -rtems configuration:
> 
> x86_64-*-elf* | x86_64-*-rtems*)
>      gdb_target_obs="amd64-tdep.o i386-tdep.o i387-tdep.o i386bsd-tdep.o"
>      ;;
> 
> It wouldn't build gdb for x86_64-elf before and at least now, it does build.

That's where I would start...

-- 
Joel

Re: x86_64-elf gdb

[Joel Sherrill]

On March 30, 2015 11:39:52 AM CDT, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
>> I was looking at getting the x86_64-elf tools up as baseline for
>> getting them up for RTEMS. There isn't a gdb target for this now
>> in gdb/configure.tgt.  This appeared to be the minimal set of files
>> to add for the -elf and -rtems configuration:
>> 
>> x86_64-*-elf* | x86_64-*-rtems*)
>>      gdb_target_obs="amd64-tdep.o i386-tdep.o i387-tdep.o
>i386bsd-tdep.o"
>>      ;;
>> 
>> It wouldn't build gdb for x86_64-elf before and at least now, it does
>build.
>
>That's where I would start...

It built for me. But I don't have any way to test it. 

Is that enough to submit a patch for the elf stanza addition?


--joel

Re: x86_64-elf gdb

[Joel Brobecker]

> It built for me. But I don't have any way to test it.
> Is that enough to submit a patch for the elf stanza addition?

That seems odd to me.  What would be the advantage of pushing
that patch if it's a configuration that you can't test?

-- 
Joel

Re: x86_64-elf gdb

[Joel Sherrill]

cc'ing Jan-Benedict since I don't see results for x86_64-elf
in the buildbot.

On 3/30/2015 3:54 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> It built for me. But I don't have any way to test it.
>> Is that enough to submit a patch for the elf stanza addition?
> That seems odd to me.  What would be the advantage of pushing
> that patch if it's a configuration that you can't test?
>
At the moment, x86_64-elf doesn't even build for binutils-gdb. It fails
due to a missing gdb configuration.

And if binutils-gdb doesn't complete successfully, that means gcc can't
be built for this target.

Jan.. do you build binutils-gdb and gcc for this target?

-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available                (256) 722-9985

Re: x86_64-elf gdb

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 767 bytes --]

On 30 Mar 2015 15:59, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On 3/30/2015 3:54 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> >> It built for me. But I don't have any way to test it.
> >> Is that enough to submit a patch for the elf stanza addition?
> > That seems odd to me.  What would be the advantage of pushing
> > that patch if it's a configuration that you can't test?
> >
> At the moment, x86_64-elf doesn't even build for binutils-gdb. It fails
> due to a missing gdb configuration.
> 
> And if binutils-gdb doesn't complete successfully, that means gcc can't
> be built for this target.

so patch it locally, test everything, and only then send patches to the 
respective projects ?  i'm not sure why this is onerous ?  this is how
it's always done for new targets ...
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: x86_64-elf gdb

[Jan-Benedict Glaw]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1100 bytes --]

On Mon, 2015-03-30 15:59:49 -0500, Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com> wrote:
> On 3/30/2015 3:54 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > > It built for me. But I don't have any way to test it.  Is that
> > > enough to submit a patch for the elf stanza addition?
> > That seems odd to me.  What would be the advantage of pushing that
> > patch if it's a configuration that you can't test?
>
> At the moment, x86_64-elf doesn't even build for binutils-gdb. It
> fails due to a missing gdb configuration.
> 
> And if binutils-gdb doesn't complete successfully, that means gcc
> can't be built for this target.
> 
> Jan.. do you build binutils-gdb and gcc for this target?

I didn't build it until a minute ago, just x86_64-linux was on the
list. It's added now, so let's wait for the first build to take place
and see how well that works.

MfG, JBG

-- 
      Jan-Benedict Glaw      jbglaw@lug-owl.de              +49-172-7608481
Signature of:              Alles sollte so einfach wie möglich gemacht sein.
the second  :                          Aber nicht einfacher.  (Einstein)

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: x86_64-elf gdb

[Jan-Benedict Glaw]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1562 bytes --]

On Tue, 2015-03-31 04:46:01 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-03-30 15:59:49 -0500, Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com> wrote:
> > On 3/30/2015 3:54 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > > > It built for me. But I don't have any way to test it.  Is that
> > > > enough to submit a patch for the elf stanza addition?
> > > That seems odd to me.  What would be the advantage of pushing that
> > > patch if it's a configuration that you can't test?
> >
> > At the moment, x86_64-elf doesn't even build for binutils-gdb. It
> > fails due to a missing gdb configuration.
> > 
> > And if binutils-gdb doesn't complete successfully, that means gcc
> > can't be built for this target.
> > 
> > Jan.. do you build binutils-gdb and gcc for this target?
> 
> I didn't build it until a minute ago, just x86_64-linux was on the
> list. It's added now, so let's wait for the first build to take place
> and see how well that works.

...and here's the very first x86_64-elf build:

	http://toolchain.lug-owl.de/buildbot/show_build_details.php?id=433054


Pure Binutils (without GDB) und GCC worked fine so far, but GDB
didn't, as expected:

make all-gdb
[...]
configure: error: configuration x86_64-pc-elf is unsupported.
make: *** [configure-gdb] Error 1

MfG, JBG

-- 
      Jan-Benedict Glaw      jbglaw@lug-owl.de              +49-172-7608481
Signature of:             God put me on earth to accomplish a certain number of
the second  :            things. Right now I am so far behind I will never die.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: x86_64-elf gdb

[Joel Sherrill]

On 3/30/2015 9:46 PM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-03-30 15:59:49 -0500, Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com> wrote:
>> On 3/30/2015 3:54 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>>>> It built for me. But I don't have any way to test it.  Is that
>>>> enough to submit a patch for the elf stanza addition?
>>> That seems odd to me.  What would be the advantage of pushing that
>>> patch if it's a configuration that you can't test?
>> At the moment, x86_64-elf doesn't even build for binutils-gdb. It
>> fails due to a missing gdb configuration.
>>
>> And if binutils-gdb doesn't complete successfully, that means gcc
>> can't be built for this target.
>>
>> Jan.. do you build binutils-gdb and gcc for this target?
> I didn't build it until a minute ago, just x86_64-linux was on the
> list. It's added now, so let's wait for the first build to take place
> and see how well that works.
This is the patch I posted before I dragged you into this. It includes
both -elf
and -rtems targets. If you use this, just drop the -rtems target. I was just
experimenting and realized the -elf target didn't build. With this, it
built.

$ git diff gdb
diff --git a/gdb/configure.tgt b/gdb/configure.tgt
index 8feda7c..bd03600 100644
--- a/gdb/configure.tgt
+++ b/gdb/configure.tgt
@@ -664,6 +664,9 @@ x86_64-*-freebsd* | x86_64-*-kfreebsd*-gnu)
                        i387-tdep.o i386bsd-tdep.o i386fbsd-tdep.o \
                        bsd-uthread.o fbsd-tdep.o solib-svr4.o"
        ;;
+x86_64-*-elf* | x86_64-*-rtems*)
+       gdb_target_obs="amd64-tdep.o i386-tdep.o i387-tdep.o i386bsd-tdep.o"
+        ;;
 x86_64-*-mingw* | x86_64-*-cygwin*)
         # Target: MingW/amd64
        gdb_target_obs="amd64-tdep.o amd64-windows-tdep.o \

> MfG, JBG
>

-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available                (256) 722-9985