Closed
Bug 1013675
Opened 11 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
Implement nsDebugImpl::GetIsDebuggerAttached() on BSDs
Categories
(Core :: XPCOM, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla32
People
(Reporter: jbeich, Assigned: jbeich)
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
|
2.54 KB,
patch
|
vladan
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
GetIsDebuggerAttached() seems to be used by bug 763138 and bug 910863. I'm not sure why Linux doesn't implement it but the code for BSDs is quite similar to OS X.
Attachment #8425924 -
Flags: review?(benjamin)
Landry, can you push the patch here and in bug 1012415 to Try (build-only) ?
Flags: needinfo?(landry)
Comment 2•11 years ago
|
||
Flags: needinfo?(landry)
The patch is nop for Linux. I need Try build on at least OS X.
Flags: needinfo?(landry)
Comment 4•11 years ago
|
||
Would have been better to say it before... and really, you should get try access.
https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=4b945e23e0ad
Flags: needinfo?(landry)
Comment 5•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8425924 [details] [diff] [review]
copypasta from ipc/chromium/src/base/debug_util_dposix.cc
Going to defer this to vladan since he wrote the code originally.
Attachment #8425924 -
Flags: review?(benjamin) → review?(vdjeric)
Comment 6•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8425924 [details] [diff] [review]
copypasta from ipc/chromium/src/base/debug_util_dposix.cc
Review of attachment 8425924 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Did you try building this patch on these BSD platforms?
::: xpcom/base/nsDebugImpl.cpp
@@ +50,3 @@
> #include <stdbool.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> +#include <sys/param.h>
Do we need sys/param.h?
Attachment #8425924 -
Flags: review?(vdjeric) → review+
(In reply to Vladan Djeric (:vladan) from comment #6)
> Did you try building this patch on these BSD platforms?
Yes, I've tested build and runtime on BSDs using a simple .c file based on the diff.
> ::: xpcom/base/nsDebugImpl.cpp
> @@ +50,3 @@
> > #include <stdbool.h>
> > #include <unistd.h>
> > +#include <sys/param.h>
>
> Do we need sys/param.h?
Because on OpenBSD sysctl(3) manpage recommends so and the following error:
In file included from test.c:9:
/usr/include/sys/proc.h:65: error: 'MAXLOGNAME' undeclared here (not in a function)
/usr/include/sys/proc.h:92: error: expected ')' before 'int'
/usr/include/sys/proc.h:93: error: expected ';' before 'int'
/usr/include/sys/proc.h:322: error: 'MAXCOMLEN' undeclared here (not in a function)
/usr/include/sys/proc.h:331: error: field 'p_sigstk' has incomplete type
/usr/include/sys/proc.h:344: error: field 'p_sigval' has incomplete type
NetBSD also recommends including sys/param.h with sys/sysctl.h while OS X, DragonFly and FreeBSD recommend sys/types.h. sys/param.h (unlike sys/types.h) is rarely implicitly included by non sys/* headers and style(9) on some BSDs says:
Kernel include files (i.e. sys/*.h) come first; normally, include
<sys/types.h> OR <sys/param.h>, but not both. <sys/types.h> includes
<sys/cdefs.h>, and it is okay to depend on that.
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 8•11 years ago
|
||
Assignee: nobody → jbeich
Keywords: checkin-needed
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla32
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•