This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: invoke ACX_LARGEFILE for gdbserver
On 02/21/2013 07:09 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:
>
> Tom> An alternative approach would be to directly invoke AC_SYS_LARGEFILE.
>
> Jan> I am not sure how it is with gdbserver and procfs on Solaris but as it does
> Jan> not seem to be an issue I would be for the more simple AC_SYS_LARGEFILE.
>
> Here you go.
I'm OK with either approach. Either patch is OK.
FYI, a gdbserver Solaris port was posted once:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-10/msg00179.html
and if we do end up splitting the gdb/gdbserver backends to a
library to be shared with gdb, we will end up needing to revisit
this at some (possibly somewhat distant) point.
I find the check for plugins support in largefile.m4 mystifying.
case "${host}" in
changequote(,)dnl
sparc-*-solaris*|i[3-7]86-*-solaris*)
changequote([,])dnl
# On native 32bit sparc and ia32 solaris, large-file and procfs support
# are mutually exclusive; and without procfs support, the bfd/ elf module
# cannot provide certain routines such as elfcore_write_prpsinfo
# or elfcore_write_prstatus. So unless the user explicitly requested
# large-file support through the --enable-largefile switch, disable
# large-file support in favor of procfs support.
test "${target}" = "${host}" -a "x$plugins" = xno \
&& : ${enable_largefile="no"}
;;
esac
It'd be good to have that comment expanded, as it currently doesn't
mention the rationale for the plugins=no check at all. I already spent
more than I'd like looking for the rationale for that, but the closest I
could find was
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2009-05/msg00402.html
which doesn't really explain it. Doesn't it look like a build with
"--enable-plugins" on 32-bit Solaris will always be broken?
I'd guess that a --enable-targets=all build, which enables plugins
too, IIRC, may also be causing trouble on ia32 Solaris, as that's not
checked here. Blah. The elfcore_write_prpsinfo/elfcore_write_prstatus
issue should really be fixed by making the core generation host independent,
thus independent of procfs, but that'd still leave gdb with the same issue.
Double blah.
I saw nowhere, in either the code or in the archives, why plugins require
largefile support.
Triple blah.
--
Pedro Alves