From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11002 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2003 16:36:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10995 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2003 16:36:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Jun 2003 16:36:59 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5RGaxH15859 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:36:59 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5RGaxI22649; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:36:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (romulus-int.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.46]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5RGav209470; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:36:57 -0400 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 516452CA3A; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:43:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16124.29759.891221.228095@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:49:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: "J. Johnston" , David Carlton , gdb , Elena Zannoni , msnyder@redhat.com Subject: Re: status of NTPL patches In-Reply-To: <20030627162358.GA29641@nevyn.them.org> References: <20030627155234.GA25134@nevyn.them.org> <3EFC6E10.9080006@redhat.com> <20030627162358.GA29641@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00512.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 12:17:20PM -0400, J. Johnston wrote: > > > > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > >On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 08:48:04AM -0700, David Carlton wrote: > > > > > >>What's the status of the NTPL patches? Are they all in mainline yet? > > >>I'm about to sync my branch with mainline, and I'm curious if I'm > > >>allowed to tell my local users that it's okay to use it with Red Hat > > >>9.0 yet. > > > > > > > > >I believe that it should work. > > > > > > > They are all committed except for Michael's rewrite of the gcore patch > > which I haven't > > seen a commit notice for yet. I don't see any reason it can't be checked > > in - Michael? > > Do you mean: > 2003-06-19 Michael Snyder > > * linux-nat.h: New file. > * linux-nat.c: Include linux-nat.h. > * lin-lwp.c: Include linux-nat.h. > Move struct lwp_info def to linux-nat.h. > * linux-proc.c: Include linux-nat.h. > (linux_make_note_section): Iterate over lwps instead of threads. > (linux_do_thread_registers): Use lwp instead of merged pid. > * config/nm-linux.h: Move miscelaneous def'ns to linux-nat.h. > * Makefile.in (lin-lwp.o, linux-proc.o, linux-nat.o): > Add dependency on linux_nat_h. > > ? > > > > There is also an unresolved issue with gdbserver. > > That's a bit of an understatement... well, hopefully it won't be too > hard, but I won't have time to look at it for another project or two. > > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz > MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer Hold tight, I am about done with another round of ala-mec-testing on RHL9 with gdb HEAD and gdb6. I should have something later today. But yes, they should work, modulus a little patch I am about to post. elena