This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
| Other format: | [Raw text] | |
2014-09-06 3:10 GMT+08:00 Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com>:
>
> On 9/5/2014 12:00 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>>>> 2014-09-05 Chung-Ju Wu <jasonwucj@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> * configure.ac (nds32*-*-*): Disable gdb.
>>>> * configure: Regenerated.
>>> It looks like the part for not building gdb for or1k*-*-rtems* gets moved
>>> by this patch. I know there was an issue with the initial submission of
>>> that change.
>>>
>>> Your patch appears to correct that also. I thought the properly regenerated
>>> configure had been committed. But I guess not.
>>>
>>> I am OK with the patch since or1k-rtems is in the same place but wanted
>>> to note that the generated file had extra stuff in it for a good reason.
>> We really should regenerate configure first, and then apply Chung-Ju's
>> patch next. There will come a day when we will be reverting that
>> patch, since hopefully GDB will be building for that target, one day.
>> We don't want the revert to accidently also revert the bits that
>> that resync configure with present-day configure.ac.
>>
Thank you for clarifying it. That also makes sense to me. :)
Since you have done the configure regeneration in
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-09/msg00155.html ,
I have my patch updated as attached and ChangeLog is the same as follow:
2014-09-05 Chung-Ju Wu <jasonwucj@gmail.com>
* configure.ac (nds32*-*-*): Disable gdb.
* configure: Regenerated.
Is the updated patch OK to commit?
Best regards,
jasonwucj
Attachment:
0001-Disable-gdb-for-nds32-until-it-is-supported_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |