On Mon, 2014-05-19 at 22:53 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Am 19.05.2014 21:00, schrieb Mark Wielaard:
> > It is just the package name > > that refers to systemtap, but it could as well have been called > > gdb-sdt-devel for example. In which case it should at least work as is > > on any arch gdb supports. > > I'm not complaing about the name of the package, but that it apparently *does* > have some unintended effects on some architectures. I was just pointing out that the package itself (sys/sdt.h) really should be arch independent. It doesn't really make sense IMHO to tie it to the arches that happen to have a systemtap implementation, since GDB also supports it, you could as well argue that it should be supported on all arches that GDB support. But if there really are unintended effects on some architectures they should be fixed. I am just not clear what the precise bugs are that you are seeing. The gcc example is somewhat hard to understand. Is the issue you are seeing with gcc really caused by sys/sdt.h or might it be the g++ template decl ordering problem discussed here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-05/msg00210.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
