Binutils and GDB

Binutils and GDB

[Stephen Biggs]

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.

Re: Binutils and GDB

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

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

Re: Binutils and GDB

[Stephen Biggs]

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?

Re: Binutils and GDB

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

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

Re: Binutils and GDB

[Stephen Biggs]

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?

Re: Binutils and GDB

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

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

Re: Binutils and GDB

[Stephen Biggs]

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
> 

Re: Binutils and GDB

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

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

Re: Binutils and GDB

[Stephen Biggs]

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
> 

Re: Binutils and GDB

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

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