prebuilt tool binaries question
janovetz at tempest.ece.uiuc.edu
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 uiuc.edu | 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