* Binutils and GDB @ 2003-08-06 12:05 Stephen Biggs 2003-08-06 12:54 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Stephen Biggs @ 2003-08-06 12:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gdb Greetings all, I apologize for what will probably seem a hopelessly clueless and newbie question, but I am stuck, so here goes: I notice that the GDB source tree has a lot of what seems to be almost identical code in common with the binutils source tree. I have made some changes to the binutils 2.14 source tree, specifically in the BFD and opcodes directories that I wish to integrate into GDB. How do I do this with the minimum amount of effort? Is there a way to tell the GDB configure to not configure the GDB's bfd, rather use another already built BFD library? How, if so? Thanks for any help. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils and GDB 2003-08-06 12:05 Binutils and GDB Stephen Biggs @ 2003-08-06 12:54 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2003-08-07 10:54 ` Stephen Biggs 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-08-06 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gdb On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:05:27PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > Greetings all, > > I apologize for what will probably seem a hopelessly clueless and newbie > question, but I am stuck, so here goes: > > I notice that the GDB source tree has a lot of what seems to be almost > identical code in common with the binutils source tree. I have made > some changes to the binutils 2.14 source tree, specifically in the BFD > and opcodes directories that I wish to integrate into GDB. How do I do > this with the minimum amount of effort? Is there a way to tell the GDB > configure to not configure the GDB's bfd, rather use another already > built BFD library? How, if so? No, GDB can't use the system BFD. I recommend just applying the patch. The directory is common to both projects, but gdb and binutils branch at different times. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils and GDB 2003-08-06 12:54 ` Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-08-07 10:54 ` Stephen Biggs 2003-08-07 13:52 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Stephen Biggs @ 2003-08-07 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: GDB list On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 15:53, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:05:27PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > Greetings all, > > > > I apologize for what will probably seem a hopelessly clueless and newbie > > question, but I am stuck, so here goes: > > > > I notice that the GDB source tree has a lot of what seems to be almost > > identical code in common with the binutils source tree. I have made > > some changes to the binutils 2.14 source tree, specifically in the BFD > > and opcodes directories that I wish to integrate into GDB. How do I do > > this with the minimum amount of effort? Is there a way to tell the GDB > > configure to not configure the GDB's bfd, rather use another already > > built BFD library? How, if so? > > No, GDB can't use the system BFD. I recommend just applying the patch. > The directory is common to both projects, but gdb and binutils branch > at different times. > But, this is a big mess, no? That means that any changes in the system binutils BFD have to be reflected in the GDB BFD and back-patched, which they seem NOT to be... how does this work at all? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils and GDB 2003-08-07 10:54 ` Stephen Biggs @ 2003-08-07 13:52 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2003-08-10 9:36 ` Stephen Biggs 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-08-07 13:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: GDB list On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:54:39PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 15:53, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:05:27PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > > Greetings all, > > > > > > I apologize for what will probably seem a hopelessly clueless and newbie > > > question, but I am stuck, so here goes: > > > > > > I notice that the GDB source tree has a lot of what seems to be almost > > > identical code in common with the binutils source tree. I have made > > > some changes to the binutils 2.14 source tree, specifically in the BFD > > > and opcodes directories that I wish to integrate into GDB. How do I do > > > this with the minimum amount of effort? Is there a way to tell the GDB > > > configure to not configure the GDB's bfd, rather use another already > > > built BFD library? How, if so? > > > > No, GDB can't use the system BFD. I recommend just applying the patch. > > The directory is common to both projects, but gdb and binutils branch > > at different times. > > > But, this is a big mess, no? That means that any changes in the system > binutils BFD have to be reflected in the GDB BFD and back-patched, which > they seem NOT to be... how does this work at all? Eh? The master sources for binutils and GDB live in the same CVS repository. So the masters are always in sync. Distributors have to patch both copies if they need local patches - but in general, they don't. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils and GDB 2003-08-07 13:52 ` Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-08-10 9:36 ` Stephen Biggs 2003-08-13 23:53 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Stephen Biggs @ 2003-08-10 9:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: GDB list On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 16:52, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:54:39PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 15:53, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:05:27PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > > > Greetings all, > > > > > > > > I apologize for what will probably seem a hopelessly clueless and newbie > > > > question, but I am stuck, so here goes: > > > > > > > > I notice that the GDB source tree has a lot of what seems to be almost > > > > identical code in common with the binutils source tree. I have made > > > > some changes to the binutils 2.14 source tree, specifically in the BFD > > > > and opcodes directories that I wish to integrate into GDB. How do I do > > > > this with the minimum amount of effort? Is there a way to tell the GDB > > > > configure to not configure the GDB's bfd, rather use another already > > > > built BFD library? How, if so? > > > > > > No, GDB can't use the system BFD. I recommend just applying the patch. > > > The directory is common to both projects, but gdb and binutils branch > > > at different times. > > > > > But, this is a big mess, no? That means that any changes in the system > > binutils BFD have to be reflected in the GDB BFD and back-patched, which > > they seem NOT to be... how does this work at all? > > Eh? > > The master sources for binutils and GDB live in the same CVS > repository. So the masters are always in sync. Distributors have to > patch both copies if they need local patches - but in general, they > don't. An example off the top of my head is the change in the latest version (or a couple of versions before, I don't know exactly) of the BFD where all references to "boolean" were changed to "bfd_boolean" and "true/false" to "TRUE/FALSE". This did NOT make it into the GDB version and it is a big change for portability, isn't it? I don't understand how you can say that the masters are always in sync? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils and GDB 2003-08-10 9:36 ` Stephen Biggs @ 2003-08-13 23:53 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2003-08-14 10:04 ` Stephen Biggs 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-08-13 23:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Biggs; +Cc: GDB list On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 12:36:04PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 16:52, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:54:39PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > > On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 15:53, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:05:27PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > > > > Greetings all, > > > > > > > > > > I apologize for what will probably seem a hopelessly clueless and newbie > > > > > question, but I am stuck, so here goes: > > > > > > > > > > I notice that the GDB source tree has a lot of what seems to be almost > > > > > identical code in common with the binutils source tree. I have made > > > > > some changes to the binutils 2.14 source tree, specifically in the BFD > > > > > and opcodes directories that I wish to integrate into GDB. How do I do > > > > > this with the minimum amount of effort? Is there a way to tell the GDB > > > > > configure to not configure the GDB's bfd, rather use another already > > > > > built BFD library? How, if so? > > > > > > > > No, GDB can't use the system BFD. I recommend just applying the patch. > > > > The directory is common to both projects, but gdb and binutils branch > > > > at different times. > > > > > > > But, this is a big mess, no? That means that any changes in the system > > > binutils BFD have to be reflected in the GDB BFD and back-patched, which > > > they seem NOT to be... how does this work at all? > > > > Eh? > > > > The master sources for binutils and GDB live in the same CVS > > repository. So the masters are always in sync. Distributors have to > > patch both copies if they need local patches - but in general, they > > don't. > > An example off the top of my head is the change in the latest version > (or a couple of versions before, I don't know exactly) of the BFD where > all references to "boolean" were changed to "bfd_boolean" and > "true/false" to "TRUE/FALSE". This did NOT make it into the GDB version > and it is a big change for portability, isn't it? I don't understand > how you can say that the masters are always in sync? It did make it into the GDB version. There is only one master copy! You're probably looking at a released version of GDB which was branched before the change. Without time travel, we can not fix past releases. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils and GDB 2003-08-13 23:53 ` Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-08-14 10:04 ` Stephen Biggs 2003-08-14 14:20 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Stephen Biggs @ 2003-08-14 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: GDB list On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 02:53, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 12:36:04PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 16:52, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:54:39PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 15:53, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:05:27PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > > > > > Greetings all, > > > > > > > > > > > > I apologize for what will probably seem a hopelessly clueless and newbie > > > > > > question, but I am stuck, so here goes: > > > > > > > > > > > > I notice that the GDB source tree has a lot of what seems to be almost > > > > > > identical code in common with the binutils source tree. I have made > > > > > > some changes to the binutils 2.14 source tree, specifically in the BFD > > > > > > and opcodes directories that I wish to integrate into GDB. How do I do > > > > > > this with the minimum amount of effort? Is there a way to tell the GDB > > > > > > configure to not configure the GDB's bfd, rather use another already > > > > > > built BFD library? How, if so? > > > > > > > > > > No, GDB can't use the system BFD. I recommend just applying the patch. > > > > > The directory is common to both projects, but gdb and binutils branch > > > > > at different times. > > > > > > > > > But, this is a big mess, no? That means that any changes in the system > > > > binutils BFD have to be reflected in the GDB BFD and back-patched, which > > > > they seem NOT to be... how does this work at all? > > > > > > Eh? > > > > > > The master sources for binutils and GDB live in the same CVS > > > repository. So the masters are always in sync. Distributors have to > > > patch both copies if they need local patches - but in general, they > > > don't. > > > > An example off the top of my head is the change in the latest version > > (or a couple of versions before, I don't know exactly) of the BFD where > > all references to "boolean" were changed to "bfd_boolean" and > > "true/false" to "TRUE/FALSE". This did NOT make it into the GDB version > > and it is a big change for portability, isn't it? I don't understand > > how you can say that the masters are always in sync? > > It did make it into the GDB version. There is only one master copy! > > You're probably looking at a released version of GDB which was branched > before the change. Without time travel, we can not fix past releases. Yes, ok... thanks. I am using the releases binutils-2.14 and gdb-5.3. So, what I can do is to integrate the gdb directories into my binutils source tree and that should work? > > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz > MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils and GDB 2003-08-14 10:04 ` Stephen Biggs @ 2003-08-14 14:20 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2003-08-17 7:48 ` Stephen Biggs 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-08-14 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: GDB list On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 01:04:29PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 02:53, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 12:36:04PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > > On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 16:52, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:54:39PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 15:53, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:05:27PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > > > > > > Greetings all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I apologize for what will probably seem a hopelessly clueless and newbie > > > > > > > question, but I am stuck, so here goes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I notice that the GDB source tree has a lot of what seems to be almost > > > > > > > identical code in common with the binutils source tree. I have made > > > > > > > some changes to the binutils 2.14 source tree, specifically in the BFD > > > > > > > and opcodes directories that I wish to integrate into GDB. How do I do > > > > > > > this with the minimum amount of effort? Is there a way to tell the GDB > > > > > > > configure to not configure the GDB's bfd, rather use another already > > > > > > > built BFD library? How, if so? > > > > > > > > > > > > No, GDB can't use the system BFD. I recommend just applying the patch. > > > > > > The directory is common to both projects, but gdb and binutils branch > > > > > > at different times. > > > > > > > > > > > But, this is a big mess, no? That means that any changes in the system > > > > > binutils BFD have to be reflected in the GDB BFD and back-patched, which > > > > > they seem NOT to be... how does this work at all? > > > > > > > > Eh? > > > > > > > > The master sources for binutils and GDB live in the same CVS > > > > repository. So the masters are always in sync. Distributors have to > > > > patch both copies if they need local patches - but in general, they > > > > don't. > > > > > > An example off the top of my head is the change in the latest version > > > (or a couple of versions before, I don't know exactly) of the BFD where > > > all references to "boolean" were changed to "bfd_boolean" and > > > "true/false" to "TRUE/FALSE". This did NOT make it into the GDB version > > > and it is a big change for portability, isn't it? I don't understand > > > how you can say that the masters are always in sync? > > > > It did make it into the GDB version. There is only one master copy! > > > > You're probably looking at a released version of GDB which was branched > > before the change. Without time travel, we can not fix past releases. > > Yes, ok... thanks. > > I am using the releases binutils-2.14 and gdb-5.3. > > So, what I can do is to integrate the gdb directories into my binutils > source tree and that should work? If you want to integrate the two, I always recommend using the CVS version of both. 2.14 and 5.3 won't work; they're on opposite sides of the change from boolean to bfd_boolean. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils and GDB 2003-08-14 14:20 ` Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-08-17 7:48 ` Stephen Biggs 2003-08-17 14:21 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Stephen Biggs @ 2003-08-17 7:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: GDB list On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 17:20, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 01:04:29PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 02:53, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 12:36:04PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 16:52, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:54:39PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 15:53, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:05:27PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > > > > > > > Greetings all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I apologize for what will probably seem a hopelessly clueless and newbie > > > > > > > > question, but I am stuck, so here goes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I notice that the GDB source tree has a lot of what seems to be almost > > > > > > > > identical code in common with the binutils source tree. I have made > > > > > > > > some changes to the binutils 2.14 source tree, specifically in the BFD > > > > > > > > and opcodes directories that I wish to integrate into GDB. How do I do > > > > > > > > this with the minimum amount of effort? Is there a way to tell the GDB > > > > > > > > configure to not configure the GDB's bfd, rather use another already > > > > > > > > built BFD library? How, if so? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, GDB can't use the system BFD. I recommend just applying the patch. > > > > > > > The directory is common to both projects, but gdb and binutils branch > > > > > > > at different times. > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, this is a big mess, no? That means that any changes in the system > > > > > > binutils BFD have to be reflected in the GDB BFD and back-patched, which > > > > > > they seem NOT to be... how does this work at all? > > > > > > > > > > Eh? > > > > > > > > > > The master sources for binutils and GDB live in the same CVS > > > > > repository. So the masters are always in sync. Distributors have to > > > > > patch both copies if they need local patches - but in general, they > > > > > don't. > > > > > > > > An example off the top of my head is the change in the latest version > > > > (or a couple of versions before, I don't know exactly) of the BFD where > > > > all references to "boolean" were changed to "bfd_boolean" and > > > > "true/false" to "TRUE/FALSE". This did NOT make it into the GDB version > > > > and it is a big change for portability, isn't it? I don't understand > > > > how you can say that the masters are always in sync? > > > > > > It did make it into the GDB version. There is only one master copy! > > > > > > You're probably looking at a released version of GDB which was branched > > > before the change. Without time travel, we can not fix past releases. > > > > Yes, ok... thanks. > > > > I am using the releases binutils-2.14 and gdb-5.3. > > > > So, what I can do is to integrate the gdb directories into my binutils > > source tree and that should work? > > If you want to integrate the two, I always recommend using the CVS > version of both. How about the integrated versions: binutils+gdb, and gdb+binutils... is there any difference? Will I get the latest updates if I access one of these? > > 2.14 and 5.3 won't work; they're on opposite sides of the change from > boolean to bfd_boolean. Yes, I found that out the hard way. > > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz > MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils and GDB 2003-08-17 7:48 ` Stephen Biggs @ 2003-08-17 14:21 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-08-17 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: GDB list On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 10:47:52AM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 17:20, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 01:04:29PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > > On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 02:53, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 12:36:04PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 16:52, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:54:39PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 15:53, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:05:27PM +0300, Stephen Biggs wrote: > > > > > > > > > Greetings all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I apologize for what will probably seem a hopelessly clueless and newbie > > > > > > > > > question, but I am stuck, so here goes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I notice that the GDB source tree has a lot of what seems to be almost > > > > > > > > > identical code in common with the binutils source tree. I have made > > > > > > > > > some changes to the binutils 2.14 source tree, specifically in the BFD > > > > > > > > > and opcodes directories that I wish to integrate into GDB. How do I do > > > > > > > > > this with the minimum amount of effort? Is there a way to tell the GDB > > > > > > > > > configure to not configure the GDB's bfd, rather use another already > > > > > > > > > built BFD library? How, if so? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, GDB can't use the system BFD. I recommend just applying the patch. > > > > > > > > The directory is common to both projects, but gdb and binutils branch > > > > > > > > at different times. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, this is a big mess, no? That means that any changes in the system > > > > > > > binutils BFD have to be reflected in the GDB BFD and back-patched, which > > > > > > > they seem NOT to be... how does this work at all? > > > > > > > > > > > > Eh? > > > > > > > > > > > > The master sources for binutils and GDB live in the same CVS > > > > > > repository. So the masters are always in sync. Distributors have to > > > > > > patch both copies if they need local patches - but in general, they > > > > > > don't. > > > > > > > > > > An example off the top of my head is the change in the latest version > > > > > (or a couple of versions before, I don't know exactly) of the BFD where > > > > > all references to "boolean" were changed to "bfd_boolean" and > > > > > "true/false" to "TRUE/FALSE". This did NOT make it into the GDB version > > > > > and it is a big change for portability, isn't it? I don't understand > > > > > how you can say that the masters are always in sync? > > > > > > > > It did make it into the GDB version. There is only one master copy! > > > > > > > > You're probably looking at a released version of GDB which was branched > > > > before the change. Without time travel, we can not fix past releases. > > > > > > Yes, ok... thanks. > > > > > > I am using the releases binutils-2.14 and gdb-5.3. > > > > > > So, what I can do is to integrate the gdb directories into my binutils > > > source tree and that should work? > > > > If you want to integrate the two, I always recommend using the CVS > > version of both. > > How about the integrated versions: binutils+gdb, and gdb+binutils... is > there any difference? Will I get the latest updates if I access one of > these? If you're using CVS you'll get the latest updates no matter what, unless you specify a branch. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-08-17 14:21 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2003-08-06 12:05 Binutils and GDB Stephen Biggs 2003-08-06 12:54 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2003-08-07 10:54 ` Stephen Biggs 2003-08-07 13:52 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2003-08-10 9:36 ` Stephen Biggs 2003-08-13 23:53 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2003-08-14 10:04 ` Stephen Biggs 2003-08-14 14:20 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2003-08-17 7:48 ` Stephen Biggs 2003-08-17 14:21 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).