Re: [PATCH 09/12] gdb_target_is_native -> gdb_protocol_is_native

[Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>]

On 5/9/24 15:31, Pedro Alves wrote:
> 
> On 2024-05-09 14:19, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Hmm, okay, it is better than now, 
> 
> Indeed, seems strictly better.  Some tests that are meant for the native target are now properly
> skipped.
> 
>> but the test casese that are affected, would probably
>> be broken by this change, if my target toolchain would either have the -linux in the name,
>> or the newlib would have a sleep and/or support the #include <sys/mman.h>.
> 
> I am afraid I don't know what you mean by this.  Why would they be broken?  Can you clarify?

What I mean is this:

there are in total 44 test cases failed to compile because of undefined reference to sleep, usleep or nanosleep
with your patch it is now one less.

But it would be piece of cake to implement some functions like
sleep(), usleep(), and nanosleep in the newlib, and then make the simulator simulate it.

Likewise there are currently 5 test cases failed to compile because of missing sys/mman.h header,
and with your patch it will be one less, but what if we want to add that to the
simulator, why cant we simulate a linux O/S?

What is so special in the one test case that changed the behavior, that
explains why the other 4 are good enough to try to include, and see if <sys/mman.h> works?


Bernd.