Re: gdb 6.7.1 hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 "needs" _XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED for various errors

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>]

> Sorry, I don't have copyright assignment, I won't likely, I've long
> since graduated but have email forwarding for life. I'm sorry if
> that is misleading, but it is too convenient to pass up.
[...]
>  eBay, older machine, messy home, cheap. :) 
>  (See also Irix, IA64, SPARC, AIX... :) )

That's very good news, because it actually simplifies the equation
enormously. If you're doing these changes on your own time with your
own equipment, the only person involve is just you :).

> I'm /hoping/ to fall under the small/trivial caveat. Thanks.

The one change I just checked in did indeed fall under the "Not Legally
Significant" rule. More patches can be accepted under the same rule
provided that they remain small and relatively trivial.  However,
when it appears that the contribute is going to send more than a couple
of patches, it's better if we have the copyright assignment on file.

The FSF provides the following guidelines:

    A change of just a few lines (less than 15 or so) is not legally
    significant for copyright. A regular series of repeated changes, such as
    renaming a symbol, is not legally significant even if the symbol has to
    be renamed in many places. Keep in mind, however, that a series of minor
    changes by the same person can add up to a significant contribution.
    What counts is the total contribution of the person; it is irrelevant
    which parts of it were contributed when.

As you can see, we're going to reach the limit pretty soon.

[about building GCC on HP/UX]

You are very courageous :-). You may want to install one of the GCC
binary packages that HP provides...

> I realize my "patch" isn't in the right form but I'm too
> lazy/ignorant/impatient.  This is more of a bug report and if someone
> can form it into a proper configured patch, or send me one to test,
> great. (That addresses the copyright issue too. :) )

OK, there is nothing wrong with that.

> The "completely configured" way, where a few snippets of code are
> attemped to be compiled, with and without the define, and if they fail
> one way and succeed the other way, put in the define.

This is unusual, and I would prefer a different approach if we can.
This all depends on what the macro is for. Could we just build *all*
files with -D_XOPEN[...] when on HP/UX? If this is meant to be used
only with a GNU compiler, then we can extend the check to GCC-only.
These are just ideas if you'd like to dig deeper.

> The other way would be like #ifdef __hpux #define _XOPEN #endif and done.
> At the end of config.in probably.

We try to stay away from this kind of practice. We rely on the configure
script for that.

> At the very least, by sending this mail, maybe someone searching the
> web for "HP-UX" and "gdb" will find the fix. I know that's lame,
> sorry.

No, that's totally fine. This might be helpful to others.

Note that if you spend the extra effort of contributing an acceptable
patch, then once contributed, you won't have to redo the work when
you move to the next version of GDB, which may be packed of features
you might be interested in ;-).

-- 
Joel