This is the mail archive of the
gdb-prs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
gdb/2225: Set architecture reports options that will not work
- From: drow at false dot org
- To: gdb-gnats at sources dot redhat dot com
- Cc: mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl
- Date: 8 Feb 2007 21:07:08 -0000
- Subject: gdb/2225: Set architecture reports options that will not work
- Reply-to: drow at false dot org
>Number: 2225
>Category: gdb
>Synopsis: Set architecture reports options that will not work
>Confidential: no
>Severity: serious
>Priority: medium
>Responsible: unassigned
>State: open
>Class: change-request
>Submitter-Id: net
>Arrival-Date: Thu Feb 08 21:08:01 GMT 2007
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: drow@false.org
>Release: CVS 2007-02-08
>Organization:
>Environment:
OpenBSD/i386
>Description:
Mark wrote in http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2007-01/msg00339.html:
warning: A handler for the OS ABI "OpenBSD ELF" is not built into this
configuration of GDB. Attempting to continue with the default i386:x86-64
settings.
So the problem here is that "set architecture" says it supports
i386:x86-64, but GDB actually doesn't. I expect this to occur on
other native configurations too, at least those that set a default OS
ABI.
Not sure how we should fix this. We really shouldn't advertise the
x86-64 variants if we don't support any 64-bit ABI, but doing so is a
tad bit difficult because this list comes directly from BFD. So
perhaps the test should be KFAIL'ed for now?
I'm not sure what the right thing is either, so I am disabling the test if this condition is detected.
>How-To-Repeat:
>Fix:
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: