Re: [PATCH 2/2] linux/aarch64: sync sys/ptrace.h with Linux 4.15

["Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv at altlinux dot org>]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 10:54:08AM +0000, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 07/02/18 09:48, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 11:35:41PM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 01:43:53AM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2017, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> To implement a proper multilib sys/ptrace.h on aarch64, arm/sys/ptrace.h
> >>>> has to be used instead of aarch64/sys/ptrace.h with all arm-specific
> >>>> definitions ifdef'ed.
> >>>
> >>> ARM and AArch64 are separate toolchain ports requiring separate compilers.
> >>> There is no support for multilib headers supporting both in the same
> >>> header.  (Debian/Ubuntu multiarch configurations put all bits/ and sys/
> >>> headers in multiarch directory arrangements so could handle having both
> >>> versions of a sys/ header installed without problems.)
> >>
> >> Sure.  My comment is addressed to people who might consider implementing
> >> multilib headers on aarch64 in the future.
> > 
> > Any more comments?  Is the change OK?
> 
> no, multilib header support is not wanted with arm and aarch64,
> they are separate targets.

Okay, I can omit this comment.  Is the change itself OK?

> i thought users of ptrace.h just include the linux asm/ptrace.h
> anyway, so glibc does not need to track linux uapi.
> (at least gdb does that in its linux specific code)

Sadly, this happens sometimes because sys/ptrace.h is used to be out of date.
However, sys/ptrace.h is still in use, otherwise we wouldn't receive bug
reports like https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22433
and https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22807


-- 
ldv

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature