From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22565 invoked by alias); 20 May 2002 14:19:39 -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 22531 invoked from network); 20 May 2002 14:19:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 May 2002 14:19:35 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id PAA01273; Mon, 20 May 2002 15:19:33 +0100 (BST) Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma000810; Mon, 20 May 02 15:19:14 +0100 Received: from cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com [172.16.1.91]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09804; Mon, 20 May 2002 15:19:12 +0100 (BST) Received: from sun18.cambridge.arm.com (sun18.cambridge.arm.com [172.16.2.18]) by cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10251; Mon, 20 May 2002 15:19:12 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <200205201419.PAA10251@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> To: Nick Clifton cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Organization: ARM Ltd. X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd) X-Fax: +44 1223 400410 X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ. X-Url: http://www.arm.com/ Subject: Re: Add support for target switches in simulator In-reply-to: Your message of "20 May 2002 14:11:05 BST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 07:19:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00817.txt.bz2 > HI Guys, > > > Andrew Cagney writes: > > > I think a better place would be a new file sim/common/sim-run.h to > > indicate that this is part of the interface that run.c uses. > > OK - an adjusted patch is attached below. > > > As for converting Arm to use the new framework, I would recommend > > creating a change-request :-) > > I think that would be best. I certainly feel that it is outside the > scope of this patch, so I hope that continuing to use the old > interface (ie not sim-options.[ch]) will not stop the patch from being > accepted. I've no objection, provided there would be no user-visible changes if we migrated to the standard framework once the PR was addressed. R.