Ping?

I rely on this patch with my other to be submitted code.

On 16.04.2020 23:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 16.04.2020 22:07, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>>> ">" == Kamil Rytarowski <n54@gmx.com> writes:
>>
>>>> All major BSDs implement PT_GET_PROCESS_STATE, but they differ in
>>>> details and want to implement follow-fork functionality differently.
>>
> 
> Actually I was wrong in this detail. FreeBSD implements
> PT_SET_EVENT_MASK, but not PT_GET_PROCESS_STATE.
> 
>>>> gdb/ChangeLog:
>>
>>>> 	* inf-ptrace.h (follow_fork, insert_fork_catchpoint)
>>>> 	(remove_fork_catchpoint, post_startup_inferior)
>>>> 	(post_attach): Move...
>>
>> I guess these aren't used on Linux, but what about rs6000-nat.c?  Those
>> are the only non-BSD users of inf_ptrace_target that I can see.
>>
>> I'm not a big fan of the current code, because makes methods conditional
>> on this define.  It would be better I guess to have an intermediate
>> subclass for this situation.  That would make it clear what code does or
>> does not rely on this.
>>
> 
> Personally, I would like to see more separation of OS specific features
> into OS-private files.
> 
>> You don't have to do that, but I don't think we can put this in without
>> knowing about the rs6000-nat case.
>>
>> Tom
>>
> 
> IBM RS/6000 is AIX and it does not support PT_GET_PROCESS_STATE. At
> least not in the versions I could check.
> 
> There was however support for PT_GET_PROCESS_STATE in HPUX, but HPUX
> handling was removed from GDB in 2015.
>