From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-16153-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 26928 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2002 16:51:49 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 26921 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2002 16:51:47 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (213.93.114.42)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 2002 16:51:47 -0000
Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2])
	by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g59Gpks00647;
	Sun, 9 Jun 2002 18:51:46 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)
	by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g59GpjQ40007;
	Sun, 9 Jun 2002 18:51:45 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from kettenis)
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 09:51:00 -0000
From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>
Message-Id: <200206091651.g59GpjQ40007@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org>
To: eliz@is.elta.co.il
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, dj@delorie.com
In-reply-to: <2593-Sun09Jun2002193921+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add two new OS ABI variants
References: <200206091513.g59FDSc70617@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <2593-Sun09Jun2002193921+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00147.txt.bz2

   Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 19:39:22 +0300
   From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il>

   > Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 17:13:28 +0200 (CEST)
   > From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>
   > 
   > As a preparation for my i386 multi-arch work, this patch adds
   > GDB_OS_GO32 and GDB_OS_NETWARE (DJGPP, and Novell Netware) and
   > documents them.

   Please call the DJGPP architecture GDB_OSABI_DJGPP.  I think it's high
   time we forgot the "go32" thing.

Oh dear, I should have asked for comments first :-).  But does it make
sense to use GDB_OSABI_DJGPP when all function names still use go32
somewhere in their name?  Do you have any plans for renaming those?
Otherwise I think we should keep GDB_OSABI_GO32.  Note that the user
only ever sees "DJGPP" as the name of the target anyway.

Mark