Re: [patch/rfc] Build inf-ptrace.o when ptrace available

[Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>]

> On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 10:24:30AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> > > > >   Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:39:57 -0400
> > > > >   From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> > > > >
> > > > >   Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > >   This modifies GDB's configure to build inf-ptrace.o whenever the ptrace 
> > > > >   call is available.  Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > >I'm not sure.  On the one hand, yes, inf-ptrace should compile & link
> > > > >on any system that has ptrace.  On the other hand, actually using this
> > > > >stuff is still a per-target decision, and there are quite a few
> > > > >targets that have ptrace, but dont use it (Solaris, OSF/1, HP-UX).
> >
> > > FYI, it isn't _linked_, except on GDB executables that use it.
> >
> > > > >I'm also thinking about the ultimate replacement of the makefile
> > > > >fragments in config/*/.  I think we should move towards a configure
> > > > >script where we can use wildcards to set some sensible defaults.
> > > > >There we'd have something like:
> > > > >
> > > > >*-*-*bsd*)
> > > > >  native_sources="inf-ptrace.c bsd-nat.c"
> > > > >  ;;
> > > > >
> > > > >*-*-linux*)
> > > > >  native_sources="inf-ptrace.c linux-nat.c"
> > > > >  ;;
>
>
> This is just a style change.  Functionally, it is _exactly_ the same as
> having a makefile fragment.  Personally, I prefer the makefile
> fragments.

As mark noted:

> >I'm also thinking about the ultimate replacement of the makefile
> >fragments in config/*/.  I think we should move towards a configure
> >script where we can use wildcards to set some sensible defaults.
> >There we'd have something like:

and I have to agree - having to add the same file to all those nat files 
sux.

> > > Going forward we need to get GNU/Linux and other systems using procfs 
> > > and an obvious migration path for that is to build support for both 
> > > procfs and ptrace into a single GDB.  The default being to use ptrace.
>
>
> Huh?  We don't "need" to do this, and in fact it's not even clearly
> desirable.  I don't get where you're coming from.  It's also 100%
> orthogonal to this issue.

Er, linux-nat already contains all sort of [snip] manipulating /proc. 
As more features get added we'll be forced to add still more.  Shouldn't 
we cut our losses?

Why is it orthogonal?  If we assume that configure determines when /proc 
and ptrace() and provides both to the user it certainly isn't.  Idea's 
such as Mark's and mine would make it easier.

Andrew