Re: gdb under solaris7

[Jim Blandy <jimb at zwingli dot cygnus dot com>]

We'd definitely like to use this patch.  We'll need you to assign your
copyright interest this patch to the Free Software Foundation.  I'll
send you the details in private mail.

(I've asked Stallman if we really need the assignment for a mostly
mechanical patch like this; it might not be necessary.  However, it
probably will, so let's get the paperwork rolling now.)


> uh, I didn't think it might get into.
> Glad because it might help somebody.
> 
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Nick Duffek wrote:
> 
> > On 30-Aug-2000, Andrei Petrov wrote:
> > 
> > >The patch below lets to build gdb with SUNWspro cc compiler.
> > 
> > Thanks.  Speaking as a Solaris/x86 maintainer, I approve of the
> > sol-thread.c part for Solaris/x86.  I have some comments on the rest,
> > which you can feel free to ignore since I can't approve or disapprove
> > it. :-)
> > 
> > In various files:
> > >!   char raw_buffer[MAX_REGISTER_RAW_SIZE];
> > [...]
> > >!   char *raw_buffer = alloca(MAX_REGISTER_RAW_SIZE);
> > 
> > All of those changes look right to me.
> > 
> > remote.c:
> > >!   scan = (char *) ref;
> > [...]
> > >!   scan = (unsigned char *) ref;
> > 
> > Looks right.
> > 
> > remote.c:
> > >!       pkt = unpack_int (pkt, &tag);	/* tag */
> > [...]
> > >!       pkt = unpack_int (pkt, (int *)&tag);	/* tag */
> > 
> > How about declaring tag as an int instead?  Better not to use typecasts
> > when easily avoidable, I think.  Andrew?
> > 
> > remote.c:
> > >!       p = (unsigned char *) bfd_get_section_name (abfd, sect);
> > [...]
> > >!       p = (char *) bfd_get_section_name (abfd, sect);
> > 
> > Yup.
> > 
> > sparc-tdep.c:
> > >! sparc_software_single_step (enum target_signal ignore,	/* pid, but we don't need it */
> > [...]
> > >! sparc_software_single_step (/*enum target_signal*/ uint ignore,	/* pid, but we don't need it */
> > 
> > What's the reason for this change?
> 
> I couldn't get it compiled without this change as far as I remember,
> I don't think I tried to get proper thing for this one.
> It hard to get motivited when you see argument named ignore:-).
> 
> > 
> > sparc-tdep.c:
> > >!   static LONGEST call_dummy_64[] = 
> > [...]
> > >!   static unsigned LONGEST call_dummy_64[] = 
> > 
> > Is the compiler complaining about the values being too big for signed long
> > long?  I suggest ULONGEST instead of unsigned LONGEST along with a comment
> > explaining the reason for the change.
> Yes, I just didn't understand the reason for compiler's complain.
> I didn't find ULONGEST so the change.
> 
> > 
> > Nick Duffek
> > nsd@redhat.com
> > 
> Regards,
> 	Andrey
> 
>