Re: x86_64-elf gdb
Mike Frysinger <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gdb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20150330211934.GG25224@vapier> |
On 30 Mar 2015 15:59, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On 3/30/2015 3:54 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > >> It built for me. But I don't have any way to test it. > >> Is that enough to submit a patch for the elf stanza addition? > > That seems odd to me. What would be the advantage of pushing > > that patch if it's a configuration that you can't test? > > > At the moment, x86_64-elf doesn't even build for binutils-gdb. It fails > due to a missing gdb configuration. > > And if binutils-gdb doesn't complete successfully, that means gcc can't > be built for this target. so patch it locally, test everything, and only then send patches to the respective projects ? i'm not sure why this is onerous ? this is how it's always done for new targets ... -mike
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 819 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVGb3mAAoJEEFjO5/oN/WB9DgQAN8TcGOEfQnq+sU/1g7Tx5k7 itW1d3K48R/WVLs2sLgR/k+j6pl40Znkl8TSmhKM1fiARAMQxi58cT+Gg5APtZTr hW87BV6iQvAOwxtG+HUxVlEkeSe9NAd/FSc8ZIKeuSPVVldzH+KQLcIbHs73VDVq Oq6iYVBnVw+2qG1IQzMP28t17C/75MoicscM5D5K6l+lVXdoR2oxCW88JKGub8ZP 0WjuuhsKcTcifRbKQEPPsB5FREYe/S8GGRIejeVfK6+8CLHSogcf5V0qtJDeAyx7 H9pjC831ImYsRF7wnI+91Z4wL2FPTpQekeO//5FBnvYzLFjVQiw+u+i3FJzfIRML ayxQqVzcMJ+3GTAmWzw/VLDZfuRcpoa83YedIE1MOIbNglZOwjh0jFjH+k6rdDTL 8NMmhWeES8AEkRh5Fm3feyDgfN8PrFzkhkfQKHk0ioZfV7WrE90y8v3bTZk1ry6T vUXdvAqKDT56jjsoyCS/hm8tfnmQSfa6zvdyEi5JjWHYPVBZ5SErH0lzAUCMR6LI DUbXWC2+IE3SOsxdfre3HpLInLWhu8mxO7KRWtVUDT7ufH5WT2asCvXSV7ucENsW vuQVoMcimPaUeOx3ZRfe1ZzZH/Fo2XCU9a3WM5OA/7puwzoTk6F/NR/+NjCklH8o oIpjp2hBf8KVTDoykMRn =+yLZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----