From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 96684 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2018 16:57:22 -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 96675 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jan 2018 16:57:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_2,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Every X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 16:57:21 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B4B64E90F; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 16:57:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D6A5D721; Fri, 19 Jan 2018 16:57:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gdb: Add missing #ifdef USE_THREAD_DB to gdbserver To: James Clarke References: <20171215000434.47315-1-jrtc27@jrtc27.com> <20171215000434.47315-2-jrtc27@jrtc27.com> <1BA91B1E-5E4A-4084-822C-3A35ADB4390C@jrtc27.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 16:57:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1BA91B1E-5E4A-4084-822C-3A35ADB4390C@jrtc27.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-01/txt/msg00405.txt.bz2 On 01/19/2018 04:55 PM, James Clarke wrote: > On 19 Jan 2018, at 16:48, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 12/15/2017 12:04 AM, James Clarke wrote: >>> gdb/ChangeLog: >>> * gdbserver/linux-low.c (handle_extended_wait): Surround call to >>> thread_db_notice_clone with #ifdef USE_THREAD_DB. >>> --- >>> [Originally erroneously sent to the binutils mailing list] >> >> Looks OK, but could you remind me what goes wrong if we >> don't do this? Does gdbserver fail to link? > > Yes, with the expected: > >> [...]/linux-low.c:664: undefined reference to `thread_db_notice_clone(thread_info*, ptid_t)' > > Every other use of thread_db_* is guarded by USE_THREAD_DB, so I assume it's > fine to do here too. Thanks for the clarification. Please add that to the commit log, and push it in. Thanks, Pedro Alves