From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32137 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2003 12:31:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32127 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2003 12:31:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2003 12:31:54 -0000 Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA20351; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:21:30 -0500 Received: from dash ([192.168.20.26]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA26970; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:31:50 -0500 Message-ID: <001d01c2cd12$d7540b70$2a00a8c0@dash> From: "Kris Warkentin" To: "Andrew Cagney" Cc: References: <1c3601c2cbc1$72eac3b0$0202040a@catdog> <3E40387D.50001@redhat.com> <006801c2ccb6$519f8c40$2a00a8c0@dash> <3E407997.1060700@redhat.com> <3E407E1E.7060100@redhat.com> Subject: Re: patch to add QNX NTO i386 support Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:31:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00181.txt.bz2 > > Suggest separating the GDB stuff out (native, target, remote) and using > > separate e-mail threads to discuss each. > > > > > > I was going to but it's easier this way. > > > > It isn't for the person doing the review -> the easier the reviewer's life is, the quicker (well, ok, in theory :-/) the reviewer should be. I'd strongly focus on getting the cross debugger (--target=i386-unknown-nto) integrated into GDB, and then worry above the native. > > > >> The native nto-procfs.c makes use > >> of some of the code in remote-qnx.c and remote-qnx-.c (we still have > >> four more targets.) If you really feel it's necessary I could do the work > >> but I had started on it and concluded it would either lead to a lot of > >> duplicated code or an explosion of files. > > > > That looks like a design problem. The common code should likely be moved to something like nto-tdep.c. What exactly is common? > > Er, s/design/structural/ Yeah... That would have implied some design in the first place. ;-) This port is a totally organic thing, grown in the fertilizer of many developers over the years. That's what makes it so much fun to clean up. I'm trying to make a snarled, weedy garden into a bonzai. Kris