This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] GDB ARIndex Linux rule cleanup
- From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Cc: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>, Pierre Muller <muller at ics dot u-strasbg dot fr>, "'Joel Brobecker'" <brobecker at adacore dot com>, gdb at sourceware dot org, "'Eli Zaretskii'" <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:20:51 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFC] GDB ARIndex Linux rule cleanup
- References: <200904151400.n3FE0div003099@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com>
On Wednesday 15 April 2009 15:00:39, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > Index: ppc-linux-tdep.h
> > ===================================================================
>
> > -/* Linux target descriptions. ?*/
> > +/* Linux kernel target descriptions. ?*/
>
>
> It seems to me that in *those* cases, we should actually use
> GNU/Linux instead -- this is talking about GDB target support
> for the GNU/Linux operating system on PowerPC, and not specifically
> related to the kernel only (for example, those target descriptions
> are also used when analysing a core file on a remote system).
I disagree. Everything in that file is related to register descriptions
and layouts defined by Linux, the kernel, what's in userland doesn't
affect any of it, or did I miss something? Even if I built a system
comprising of a Linux kernel + all BSD userland, these constants and
offsets would still apply.
On Wednesday 15 April 2009 15:00:39, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> /* Create a prototype generic GNU/Linux target.
I'm of the oposite opinion. I consider *this* a bug. This
file (linux-nat.c) concerns about abstracting of ptrace and /proc
interfaces, which are kernel defined interfaces.
> The other instances in your patch, where a kernel version
> is specifically named, clearly refer to the Linux kernel.
>
> I'd be fine with adding "kernel" to the text here; but I
> also agree with Eli's suggestion that it might be even
> better to have the ARI script recognize use of a version
> number ...
I re-suggest what Mark suggested, that we drop the ARI rule.
It is only inventing work. I suggest we apply the Linux vs
GNU/Linux judgement at patch review time, and be mostly careful
in documentation and user visible strings, not in code directly
interfacing with kernel data structures and interfaces.
--
Pedro Alves