From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21089 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2002 00:56:32 -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 21082 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2002 00:56:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2002 00:56:32 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id E1C47D2CE5; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:56:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:56:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: HPPA files naming convention... Message-ID: <20021126005631.GC23000@gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00624.txt.bz2 I find the naming convention for the hppa targets too short for my liking: - hppah -> hppa on hpux - hppao -> hppa on osf - hppab -> hppa on bsd I suggest we transition to a more verbose naming, which should be more consistent with the other ports I know. For instance, how about hppa-hpux instead of hppah. I hear a netbsd port will probably be done in the future, we can then use hppa-netbsd. We would use this convention for the files in the config/pa directory (tm-hppa-hpux.h, hppa-hpux.mt, etc), and also for for the files in gdb (hppa-hpux-tdep.c). The part that is indenpedent of the OS would still stay in hppa (eg tm-hppa, hppa-tdep.c, etc). Does this seam like a good idea? -- Joel