bug-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Port gdbserver to GNU/Hurd


From: Yue Lu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Port gdbserver to GNU/Hurd
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:47:23 +0800

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Thomas Schwinge <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 12:11:02 +0100, Pedro Alves <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 09/03/2013 10:38 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>> > [strategy]
>>
>> I've been thinking about this this morning, after seeing these
>> patches.
>>
>> For new gdbserver ports, this path just seems to swim further away from
>> a full sharing approach, by adding lots duplication as first step, [...]
>
>> So my idea would be, [...]
>
> Understood, and yes, your argumentation is reasonable.
>
>> I'd do this [by]
>> literally moving gdbserver/gnu-low.c on top of gdb/gnu-nat.c (etc.), and
>> use git diff to guide me through, in identifying what would need to
>> be restored, and guarded with #if[n]def GDBSERVER.  [...]
>
> Yes, that's a nice technique for displaying and integrating the
> differences between the existing Hurd native port's files and the new
> gdbserver port's.  Yue, does the approach of diffing the files as Pedro
> described make sense to you?  Please tell if you need help with how to
> use Git to do that, etc.

Yeah, I will do that. But in my understand, I will use diff gnu-low.c
../gnu-nat.c and something like this. But I don't know how to use git
do this.  Like git diff a.c b.c?

BTW, I got these patches by  git diff <early_commit>  > gdb.patch.
Then I edit the patch to two file. When I use git format-patch
<early_commit> I will get a patche for each commit after the
early_commit. What is the better way you generate patches?

-- 
Yue Lu (陆岳)



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]