On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Loren James Rittle wrote: > >> Loren Rittle indicated that they were [in a form useful to /usr/ports] > > Actually, to avoid all confusion, I privately wrote Kip to say that I > was able to extract out his updated thread support and apply it to my > local mainline binutils tree. That is a bit different than indicating > the work is in proper FreeBSD /usr/port patch form or canonical FSF > patch form. ;-) > > >> but pointed out what you have already pointed out to me:[...] > > > There's no reason freebsd-uthread.c has to be included in gdb. > > We've been maintaining it in our own tree for some time now. > > There's advantages to maintaining it in our own tree anyways. > > Our threads library is still under development, not to mention > > threadsNG where a lot is probably going to change. > > I completely agree with the advantage listed. However, overall, I > must disagree with you as one working on improving gcc3 both in > general and for FreeBSD. I wouldn't disagree with you if the base gdb > in FreeBSD could debug the latest C++ and Dwarf output from gcc 3. > Either way, I concede that my gdb requirements are a special case...
Then make a port for gdb with freebsd-uthread.c as a [patch]file. As I said in a previous email, I just made a change a day ago that requires freebsd-uthread.c to be changed. It's only going to get worse once threadsNG get underway. -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
