From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14394 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2003 23:53:58 -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 14386 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2003 23:53:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 2003 23:53:57 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.20 #1 (Debian)) id 19n5Qp-0006Yp-AF; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 19:53:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:53:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Stephen Biggs Cc: GDB list Subject: Re: Binutils and GDB Message-ID: <20030813235331.GA25134@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Stephen Biggs , GDB list References: <1060171527.9735.23.camel@steve.softier.local> <20030806125353.GA24354@nevyn.them.org> <1060253680.9735.28.camel@steve.softier.local> <20030807135228.GB28000@nevyn.them.org> <1060508164.15800.15.camel@steve.softier.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1060508164.15800.15.camel@steve.softier.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00143.txt.bz2 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