Closed
Bug 1013675
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 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•10 years ago
|
||
https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=5c75f7f5d920
Flags: needinfo?(landry)
The patch is nop for Linux. I need Try build on at least OS X.
Flags: needinfo?(landry)
Comment 4•10 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•10 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•10 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•10 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/e450502ae19e
Assignee: nobody → jbeich
Keywords: checkin-needed
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e450502ae19e
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla32
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•