prebuilt tool binaries question

Jake Janovetz janovetz at
Fri May 19 12:11:17 UTC 2000

> >     Joel> usefulness of the configurations being built.  For example,
> >     Joel> the m68k gdb does not include Eric Norum's bdm kit.
> > 
> > What would it take to fold in the BDM patches into GDB binaries?  I
> > would guess that a BDM-capable m68k/coldfire gdb would be a very
> > common case, one that would be nice to support "out of the box."
> I think BDM is important to support.  If Eric Norum can't
> use the gdb RPM, then who can? :)
> We started to add the BDM patch but had to stop and
> back it out because there were problems that were too
> complicated to address this close to a release.
> The problem is that the BDM patches are Linux specific, 
> not enabled for m68k-rtems, and do not turn themselves 
> off when configuring on a non-Linux host.
> As it is, this causes problems building for non-Linux hosts.
> Moreover, you have to have the bdm device installed to use it.
> Mostly I think it is a matter of tinkering with configure 
> scripts in gdb so:
>   + disable automatically on Linux
>   + m68k-rtems on Linux includes this bdm support
>   + m68k-rtems on other hosts does not include it
>   + address the device installation issue
>   + address including bdm documentation in the RPM.


   How difficult (or would it even be reasonable) to provide 
three levels of RPM for gdb:  rtems-base-, m68k-rtems-, and bdm-.
The last one installs the differences involved for BDM support.
   (including the bdm.o module)


   janovetz at    | How can it be that mathematics, being after all a 
 University of Illinois | product of human thought independent of experience,
                        | is so admirably adapted to the objects of reality?
        PP-ASEL         |                                  - Albert Einstein

Disclaimer: The policies of this University certainly do not reflect my
            own opinions, objectives, or agenda.

More information about the users mailing list