From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18905 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2014 13:11:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 18896 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jan 2014 13:11:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx.tkos.co.il Received: from guitar.tcltek.co.il (HELO mx.tkos.co.il) (192.115.133.116) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:11:42 +0000 Received: from tarshish (unknown [10.0.8.6]) by mx.tkos.co.il (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 414D0440AB7; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:11:39 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:11:00 -0000 From: Baruch Siach To: Pedro Alves Cc: Maxim Grigoriev , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Marc Gauthier , Dror Maydan Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: xtensa: fix build Message-ID: <20140117131137.GN4602@tarshish> References: <52D80CCB.4040008@redhat.com> <20140116170135.GF4602@tarshish> <20140116202727.GH4602@tarshish> <52D92AF3.7030905@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52D92AF3.7030905@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00676.txt.bz2 Hi Pedro, On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 01:06:59PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 01/16/2014 08:27 PM, Baruch Siach wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:11:41PM -0800, Maxim Grigoriev wrote: > >> Hello Pedro and Baruch, > >> > >> I actually haven't been doing Xtensa GDB maintenance for quite some time > >> now since I left Tensilica. > > > > Since xtensa-linux-nat.c used PTRACE_GETXTREGS since the beginning, and since > > sys/ptrace.h (at least on uClibc) never defined this value, the question is > > simply how did you build gdb at the time? > > > > I should note that Buildroot is carrying this patch for more than a year now. > > Alright. Indeed, the original submission left me wondering whether > the "We" in "We need" might even be talking about a different libc > than what the original port was done against (if not, weird that this > didn't come up then), and if so, then I have to wonder whether > just switching to asm/ptrace.h might be breaking the build against > other libc (glibc?), and therefore we might need to include both. > So mainly I'm just looking for a little more confirmation and > more extended description for the commit log / archives. OK. I'll resend with a more verbose commit log, summarizing what I know, including any additional information that Maxim will provide. baruch -- http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{= - baruch@tkos.co.il - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -