This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [email@example.com: threads RH6/Sparc vs. GDB]
- To: hjl at lucon dot org
- Subject: Re: [firstname.lastname@example.org: threads RH6/Sparc vs. GDB]
- From: Jim Kingdon <kingdon at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:06:48 -0500
- CC: gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, robertl at sco dot com
- References: <19991101161449.373C51B493@ocean.lucon.org>
> May I suggest to hold any Linuxthreads patches for the time being?
> I have a patch which will make most of them obsolete. I will send
> a patch after the i387 issue is resolved. I don't want to add more
> to the backlog of Linux related patches.
I don't see any reason why threads should need to wait until after
A patch in the hand is worth two in the bush (Cygnus also has quite a
few threads patches/rewrites in the bush, which sound good from what
I've heard, but I'm not putting off all thread work until they show
up). If people want to make the threads configuration stuff
arch-independent (which I agree is the clean solution), that's OK.
But if no patch to do so is forthcoming, I'd vote for checking in
robertl's sparc patch (minus the ptrace header kludges) until this can
be done right.