This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [rfa/i386] Consolidate i386 targets


On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote:


This patch replaces a number of explicit i386 (-aout, -coff, -elf, -pe) targets with a generic ``i386-*'' pattern.

It then updates the MAINTAINERS file so that only one i386 target is listed or building: i386-elf. This should cut down on the number of targets that need building.

Why is this part a good idea?  DJGPP is still supported, right?
Yes, DJGPP is definitly still supported. DJGPP is a native configuration though, and the above list applies to the cross debuggers.

       * MAINTAINERS: Drop i386-aout and i586-pc-msdosdjgpp from target
       list.

Did I miss something?
I don't think so.  My understanding of the thread:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-05/msg00774.html

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:21:46 -0400
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>

> > Sorry, I still don't understand: does this mean a remote debugger with
> some stub on the remote DOS/Windows machine? Or maybe the stub (or
> gdbserver) running inside DOSEmu on the GNU/Linux box?

Those are both valid.


> My point is that DJGPP debugging is very special: there's no OS
> provision for system calls like ptrace etc., so the only way to debug
> a DJGPP inferior is to run it natively under a specially built program
> that is linked against the DJGPP debug support library.  I'm curious
> how does your cross build achieve that, since I believe neither
> gdbserver nor any of the remote-* modules support DJGPP as of now.

I didn't say it would be useful.  But consult MAINTAINERS; everything
listed in the "Targets" section on a --target= line is currently
"expected" to be buildable as a cross debugger, to sanity check
changes.  That's all I was doing.

Then I don't think you (or anyone else on this list) should be
concerned with these problems: IMHO, a failure to build a
dysfunctional version of GDB is not a failure at all.
is that trying to ensure that a cross DJGPP debugger always builds isn't useful.

enjoy,
Andrew




Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]