This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Assume solib.h
Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:46:54 -0500
From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:38:08 -0500
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
>
> Joseph, Kevin,
>
> The attached patch illustrates the minimum needed to enable solibs for
> Solaris. It just needs to be filled out so that other systems are
> updated like I did for PPC linux (hint, hint ;-)
>
> Once this is in place we can follow through with other cleanups - much
> will fall out!
>
> There's just one non-technical nit.
>
> It means breaking non solib.[hc] shared library systems. Kevin
> indicated that there were two - AIX and HP/UX remaining. I think we can
> live with that - we've patiently waited for what, more than two years
> for nothing to happen, so it is now time to give things that gentle push.
>
> IIRC (and looking at the code I think I do remember it correctly) this
> also breaks targets without shared library support.
I gave it a full test with PowerPC GNU/Linux and sniff test with
powerpc-elf. If there are other problems, I'm sure they'll be sorted out.
Really?
Really! Please look again at the proposal.
Sorry Andrew, but if you want this to go in, you'll have to fix it.
(Of course I might do that myself to get OpenBSD/mips64 working again).
as in your earlier comment:
please don't check in something like this without testing
this on some sort of embedded target, vax-dec-openbsd* or
vax-dec-ultrix4*.
I'm really really sorry here (and remember I also hack on *BSD, even
down to kernel fixes - you're hardly a voice in the wilderness on this
one). We can't do this.
My change allows Code Sorcery to achieve their goal of getting Solaris
10 support in GDB, while at the same time allow us to move forward with
our objective of improving support for GNU, GNU/Linux and even the other
mainstream Free and non-Free platform support.
We win - Code Sorcery Wins; we have a symbiotic relationship.
On the other hand, by effectively requiring that a contributor must
first test/fix a change on marginal if not irrelevant systems such as
vax-dec-ultrix4 (the suggestion also carried other less pleasant
undertones), can only stall the host's (GDB's) development. Isn't that
called a parasitic relationship?
Andrew
> 6 Platforms to Support
> http://www.fsf.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Platforms.html#Platforms