This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] Fix CLONE_VM vs. TLS [Re: Is CLONE_VM really needed in gdbserver?]
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, GDB <gdb at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:01:07 -0500
- Subject: Re: [patch] Fix CLONE_VM vs. TLS [Re: Is CLONE_VM really needed in gdbserver?]
- References: <6dc9ffc81001261551j6221db6v88e96713d6dd9497@mail.gmail.com> <20100127000821.GA29862@caradoc.them.org> <20100127221236.GA4746@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:12:36PM +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> No regressions on {x86_64,x86_64-m32,i686}-fedora12-linux-gnu and on
> x86_64-fedora12-linux-gnu via gdbserver.
>
> Verified linux_supports_tracefork_flag gets still set with the patch.
>
> Verified unsetting HAVE_FORK for gdb/gdbserver/ still works the same.
>
> gdb/ already tests HAVE_FORK in config.in but it is brought in by other
> macros, therefore rather added an explicit configure.ac test for it.
>
> Have not found an easy enough uClinux disk image of some arch for qemu-*.
I don't recommend testing HAVE_FORK; uClibc may provide a dummy fork
that returns ENOSYS. There's a HAS_NOMMU in linux-low.c that should work.
For the test case, what defines UCLINUX?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery