This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] ppc-linux-nat.c AltiVec regs ptrace
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 06:06:55PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> > Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > > I'm confused.
> > Yeah, you are not the only one.
> > >
> > > On i386, glibc defines PTRACE_GETFPXREGS. On PowerPC, in current FSF
> > > glibc, sys/ptrace.h does not define anything along these lines at all.
> > OK, I have downloaded glibc 2.2.5, and sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/ptrace.h
> > defines PTRACE_GETFPXREGS.
> > Then on my system, I have /usr/include/sys/ptrace.h which also defines it.
> > But I think I have an older version of glibc installed.
> > What I am not understanding is where the installed file comes from, is
> > it the same as sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/ptrace.h?
> The way the glibc build process works is a mess. Every target has a
> list of sysdep directories. The first matching file is installed. In
> this case, it is sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/powerpc/sys/ptrace.h. When
> looking for a file in the glibc source, I recommend always getting a
> list of all files by that name first.
Ok, now I understand where the file comes from.
I have glibc-2.2.1 installed:
$ find . -name ptrace.h
While in the 2.2.5 sources:
find . -name ptrace.h
In case of 2.2.5 the powerpc version of the file gets installed. While
for 2.2.1 the one with the definitions for PTRACE_GETFPXREGS is installed.
Ok then, should we support the older version or not?
If not we have two options:
1. if glibc gets a patch with the new PTRACE_GETVRREGS requests, then
we can add another different configuration check.
2. We can just rely on the run time check. Which means I have to redo
the patch again [where is that bucket].
Actually doing just 2 would work also with the older version, I guess.
Unless I am missing some other subtlety. Ok I'll change it.