RE: [RFC] Mingw Windows 64-bit gdbserver

["Pierre Muller" <pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr>]

 > -----Message d'origine-----
> De : gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-patches-
> owner@sourceware.org] De la part de Pedro Alves
> Envoyé : Friday, April 16, 2010 6:00 PM
> À : gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Cc : Pierre Muller
> Objet : Re: [RFC] Mingw Windows 64-bit gdbserver
> 
> On Friday 16 April 2010 16:31:51, Pierre Muller wrote:
> >   This patch tries to implement support for
> > gdbserver on Windows 64-bit, using the mingw32
> > cross compiler to windows-64bit.
> >
> >   I am unsure if anyone else already tried this,
> > but searching in gdb-patches I didn't find anything...
> > Don't hesitate to tell me otherwise...
> >
> >   The resulting gdbserver seem usable to me,
> >
> >   I do have a few questions:
> >   - About the new file, win64-amd64-low.c
> > should I remove the copyright years and only leave 2010?
> > should I state that it is adapted from win32-i386-low.c?
> 
> How about instead merging the files, like
> linux-x86-low.c handles both 64-bit and 32-bit?  There's
> a lot of common stuff between both archs support, it
> seems. 


  Of course, I agree with you that the two files
share a very large common portion that is identical.
  There are only two places where they really differ:
  For the call to the init_registers_XXX
and for the register mappings array.

  The main question is how should we split these parts 
off if we want to keep a common part:

  I would propose this:
  rename win32-i386-low.c to win-x86-low.c

  Create win32-i386-low.h and win64-amd64-low.h
that would have the register mappings and
a macro to define their local init_registers.

  The problem with this approach is that I 
don't know if it is OK to put
a static array (the mappings) into a header?
  If this is not regarded as a good C practice
we could use win32-i386-low.c and win64-amd64-low.c
to directly include the same things as the headers
I described above and include the C files instead.
  I was thinking that including C files directly
was  not good practice, but it is already used for the 
files generated from the XML feature files, so 
this might be a second option.

  Please just let me know which option seems
more favorable to you and I will try to 
implement it.

Pierre