Re: Linux sigtramp detection code moved to its proper place

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> >   What would you suggest for a non-buggy Tar program to do, exactly?
> >
> > Simply overwrite the files, possibly asking confirmation from the
> > user.  This shouldn't be a problem, since the DJGPP native port
> > doesn't need i386-linux-nat.c nor i386-linux-tdep.c.
> 
> The users don't know whether these files are or aren't needed.  So
> they might overwrite the wrong files, and mess up the build beyond
> any recognition.

As Eli notes, the average user doesn't know if a warning during an
unpack is legetimate or not.  Having things unpack without warnings both
improves the out-of-box experience and reduces the number of apparently
silly (but actually legetimate) e-mail questions.  Having the build
issue GCC warnings for things that won't/can't be fixed fixed is equally
confusing.

By way of an olive branch ;-)  Is there anything that the nightly
snapshots (short term) and/or testsuite (medium/long term) can do to
ensure that the relevant djgpp files are always up-to-date?

As a suggestion from left field, I've wondered if gdb.base/selftest.exp
should be moved to gdb.wb/selftest.exp (wb == white box) so that people
can freely add additional white box tests to GDB.  Checking consistency
between config/djgpp/<that-file> and the GDB sources could be part of
that testsuite.

	enjoy,
		Andrew