This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdbserver/{<foo>,<os>,<bar>}.c?; Was: [rfa] gdbserver overhaul
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:03:51 -0400
- Subject: Re: gdbserver/{<foo>,<os>,<bar>}.c?; Was: [rfa] gdbserver overhaul
- References: <20011011161453.A15989@nevyn.them.org> <3BCD045B.4050607@cygnus.com> <20011017002357.A25378@nevyn.them.org> <3BCDDD47.2010805@cygnus.com> <20011017164008.A15898@nevyn.them.org>
Which part are you referring to? The low-linux.c breakup? I can do
that; I can also test it on 80% of the affected targets, and I'd
consider such a patch ``obvious''.
Yes the split.
Check the guideline for obvious. Your patch will knowingly break
something. Hmm, will someone object?
I don't really see the point. It's no more (in fact probably less)
broken than all the other targets, which make the same or worse
assumptions. I'm trying to fix them, not delete them [:)] I'm open to
marking it obsolete, certainly.
The MIPS gbserver sim is very broken. GDB has code to carefully map
between a simulator and its internal register numbering. It was
originally added for the mips-gdb <-> sim interface.
With respect to sparc, if it really doesn't even build, then well, how
motivated are you? [:-)] You could fix it, obsolete it or transform it
(still broken).
For Solaris? I'm not motivated in the slightest. In fact, I'm tempted
to mark all non-Linux gdbserver targets as obsolete, and repair them
one at a time as volunteers, or at least testers, pop their heads up.
I don't think that is reasonable - it would be setting a precident for
me doing things like ignoring / breaking currently working linux targets
because (say) most are not multi-arch.
enjoy,
Andrew