This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] gdb: xtensa: fix build
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Baruch Siach <baruch at tkos dot co dot il>
- Cc: Maxim Grigoriev <maxim2405 at gmail dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Marc Gauthier <marc at tensilica dot com>, Dror Maydan <maydan at tensilica dot com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:06:59 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: xtensa: fix build
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <f383c2af89af118246e629066ce3f0a4d0b4b6ef dot 1389877313 dot git dot baruch at tkos dot co dot il> <52D80CCB dot 4040008 at redhat dot com> <20140116170135 dot GF4602 at tarshish> <CAC3St3Du78bPPpczNwdV-TvCN-egk1kFn=L9tYveazDdse-dnA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140116202727 dot GH4602 at tarshish>
On 01/16/2014 08:27 PM, Baruch Siach wrote:
> Hi Maxim,
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:11:41PM -0800, Maxim Grigoriev wrote:
>> Hello Pedro and Baruch,
>>
>> I actually haven't been doing Xtensa GDB maintenance for quite some time
>> now since I left Tensilica.
>
> Since xtensa-linux-nat.c used PTRACE_GETXTREGS since the beginning, and since
> sys/ptrace.h (at least on uClibc) never defined this value, the question is
> simply how did you build gdb at the time?
>
> I should note that Buildroot is carrying this patch for more than a year now.
Alright. Indeed, the original submission left me wondering whether
the "We" in "We need" might even be talking about a different libc
than what the original port was done against (if not, weird that this
didn't come up then), and if so, then I have to wonder whether
just switching to asm/ptrace.h might be breaking the build against
other libc (glibc?), and therefore we might need to include both.
So mainly I'm just looking for a little more confirmation and
more extended description for the commit log / archives.
--
Pedro Alves