On Sunday 25 October 2009 01:30:57, Michael Snyder wrote:
Pedro Alves wrote:
On Friday 23 October 2009 16:44:06, Michael Snyder wrote:
Hey folks, we ran into a bunch of build problems because record.c
was being compiled in a lot of builds where it wasn't needed (or
tested).
This change will make record.c be like gcore.c, in that it is only
built if the target config files explicitly call for it.
(You mean the host config file.)
No. We had designed record_stratum so that it could be used
transparently of whatever's the process_stratum target beneath, which
allows precord to work against remote (gdbserver) and sim, e.g.,
moxie precord support.
Hmmm, ok -- I must not have followed that discussion closely.
There wasn't that much discussion:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-06/msg00149.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-05/msg00657.html
I major point I was trying to put across, and that I could have
been a bit more explicit is that, being able to be used
transparently of whatever's the process_stratum target
beneath (as opposed to only the native child target)
means "precord should be host independent".
I don't think the fact that precord can work against whatever
target is beneath it has been widely advertised yet. It certainly
hasn't been widely tested, eg. against remote.
Huh. So? Does that mean we should break it and make it
impossible to test?