[PATCH 31/40] target_ops/C++: Base FreeBSD target

[John Baldwin]

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 08:09:44 PM Pedro Alves wrote:
> The
> 
>   $architecture x NetBSD/OpenBSD/FreeBSD
> 
> support matrix complicates things a bit.  There's common BSD target
> code, and there's common architecture-specific code shared between the
> different BSDs.  Current, all that is stiched together to form a final
> target, via the i386bsd_target, x86bsd_target, fbsd_nat_add_target
> functions etc.
> 
> Introduces a fbsd_nat_target base/prototype target.  To be used in
> following patches.

I will do some tests of FreeBSD/amd64 first and let you know what I find.
One small thing I noticed:

> diff --git a/gdb/fbsd-nat.h b/gdb/fbsd-nat.h
> index 8326b96db7..a4418bb8f8 100644
> --- a/gdb/fbsd-nat.h
> +++ b/gdb/fbsd-nat.h
> +
> +#ifdef PL_FLAG_EXEC
> +  int insert_exec_catchpoint (int) override;
> +  int remove_exec_catchpoint (int) override;
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifdef HAVE_STRUCT_PTRACE_LWPINFO_PL_SYSCALL_CODE
> +  int set_syscall_catchpoint (int, bool, int, gdb::array_view<const int>)
> +    override;
> +#endif /* HAVE_STRUCT_PTRACE_LWPINFO_PL_SYSCALL_CODE */
> +
> +#endif /* PT_LWPINFO */
> +};

Do we want to be consistent about whether or not to have comments for
#endif's?  Most in this change don't but these two do.

(Also, my initial impression is that the #ifdef's are more readable in this
version than the current code)

-- 
John Baldwin