This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Don't talk about ptrace when there's none
- To: dan at cgsoftware dot com
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Don't talk about ptrace when there's none
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 09:49:53 -0700
- CC: gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Organization: Cygnus Solutions
- References: <200004061216.IAA21692@mescaline.gnu.org> <ya6r8kms.fsf@dan.resnet.rochester.edu>
- Reply-To: msnyder at cygnus dot com
Daniel Berlin+list.gdb-patches wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> Isn't there a test for PTRACE in the configuration script?
> Can't we use that somehow, rather than __DJGPP__?
> maybe HAVE_PTRACE exists in config.h?
>
> I ask because we don't have ptrace on BeOS either, and i don't think
> we want to have more than one ifdef.
The ptrace message is really old, and there are now lots of
systems that don't use ptrace (including Solaris, Irix, and
yes even the Hurd). What if we move that msg down into
inflow or infptrace?