Re: [rfa/threads] Eliminate lin-lwp.c

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 12:30:11PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >>>>>Er, why are you doing this?  Why isn't it possible to have a separate
> >>>>>target vector without moving all the code around?
> >>
> >>>
> >>>You mean add a "lin-lwp.h" which exports everything so that 
> >>>"linux-nat.c" can construct that vector, or conversly have "linux-nat.h" 
> >>>export everything so that "lin-lwp.c" can construct the vector?
> >>>
> >>>Bleauh! Such a separation is artifical (although perhaphs the single 
> >>>file should be called inf-linux.[hc]).
> >
> >
> >Yes, that's what I meant.  I'd like to preserve the revision history
> >when possible.
> 
> The revision history or the existing files and their contents?  The 
> former is always available in CVS.  The later, as I noted, is just an 
> artifical separation that will complicate the objective of cleaning up 
> this code.

I find the ability to use cvs annotate and diff on a function extremely
valuable, and you'll make that much more awkward if you move them
around without a reason.  I was asking if you had a reason to create
this inconvenience.

> I do see merit in creating an a new inf-linux.c (to be consistent with 
> inf-ptrace, and inf-child), and I think I'll revise the patch to do that.

Please don't.  It's the native support for Linux.  By GDB's existing
conventions it ought to be linux-*.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz