This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] gdbserver: Add support for qGetTLSAddr packet
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 19:25:50 -0400
- Subject: Re: [RFA] gdbserver: Add support for qGetTLSAddr packet
- References: <20041206152002.551f8d46.kevinb@redhat.com> <20050224205324.GD11751@nevyn.them.org> <20050225093429.1ea6e639@ironwood.lan>
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 09:34:29AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:53:24 -0500
> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 03:20:02PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> > > The patch below adds qGetTLSAddr packet support to gdbserver.
> > >
> > > I wrote this to demonstrate / test the support that I've added on the
> > > GDB side. I suspect some configury tweaking may be needed to test for
> > > the existence of td_thr_tls_get_addr() in libthread_db.c. (If it
> > > doesn't exist, then get_thread_local_addr() should be ifdef'd to return
> > > a 0 status.)
> > >
> > > If it's otherwise okay, I'm willing to make the necessary configury
> > > changes. If it's not okay for some other reason, I'd like to address
> > > that first...
> >
> > This should go through the target vector, instead of adding #ifdefs.
> > Then linux-low.c can handle whether thread-db is present or not.
> >
> > Is this patch still current, or did the protocol evolve since the last
> > posting?
>
> The protocol did change, but the patch is still current. (The protocol
> change simply removed the extra load module related parameters that Linux
> didn't use anyway.)
Hi Kevin,
Rereading my response, I'm not sure if this was clear: the patch is not
OK without a change to use gdbserver's target vector. If you won't
have time to do this, let me know, and I'll try to find a chance to do
it myself.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC