Re: gdb-patches Digest 11 Feb 2001 23:49:53 -0000 Issue 545

[Jeffrey A Law <law at redhat dot com>]

  In message <981935393.6900.ezmlm@sources.redhat.com>you write:
   > From: Paul Hilfinger <hilfingr@gnat.com>
  > To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
  > Subject: RFC: patch to allow building on HPUX 11
  > Message-Id: <20010210235513.E298C34D80@nile.gnat.com>
  > Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:55:13 -0500 (EST)
  > 
  > 
  > I had to make the following patch to get the current sources to compile
  > on HPUX 11.0.
  > 
  > A related question: I also found that I needed to add -D__STDC_EXT__
  > to CFLAGS in order to get uint64_t defined when used HP header files.
  > Is this something that ought to be added to the configuration files, or is
  > some other change appropriate instead?
This sounds like you're trying to build with gcc-2.95.x, which does not
support hpux11.


  > 2001-02-11  Paul Hilfinger  <hilfingr@lisbon.int.act-europe.fr>
  > 
  > 	* hpux-thread.c (hpux_thread_xfer_memory): Add mem_attrib 
  > 	argument to parameter list and to call in order to conform to 
  > 	to_xfer_memory field of struct target_ops.
?!? I can't see how this can be right.

>From target.h in the current CVS tree the to_xfer_memory signature looks
like this:

    int (*to_xfer_memory) PARAMS ((CORE_ADDR memaddr, char *myaddr,
                                   int len, int write,
                                   struct target_ops * target));


Note, there is no mem_attrib argument.



  > From: Paul Hilfinger <hilfingr@gnat.com>
  > To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
  > Subject: RFC: Killing some warnings
  > Message-Id: <20010211075957.3E9F434D80@nile.gnat.com>
  > Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 02:59:57 -0500 (EST)
  > 
  > 
  > While I was mucking around with hpux-thread.c, I happened to notice that
  > it contains an instance of make_cleanup that does not conform to the 
  > guidelines given in Cagney's comment in defs.h.  Doesn't happen to cause 
  > any problems here, except for warnings, but I don't trust warnings.  With
  > this change, there will be no warnings unless the size of void* or int 
  > changes, at which point there SHOULD be one.
  > 
  > Paul Hilfinger
  > Ada Core Technologies
  > 
  > 
  > 2001-02-11  Paul Hilfinger  <hilfingr@nile.gnat.com>
  > 
  > 	* hpux-thread.c (save_inferior_pid): Change call to make_cleanup
  > 	to make arguments conform.
  > 	(restore_inferior_pid): Change signature to that expected by
  > 	make_cleanup.
No comment on this one -- I'm not that familiar with the new guidelines
for make_cleanup.  I'll let Andrew comment on this.