From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12088 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2004 17:38:17 -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 12074 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2004 17:38:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 Sep 2004 17:38:17 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1C80D2-0003vK-Pc; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:38:16 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:38:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/threads] Eliminate lin-lwp.c Message-ID: <20040916173816.GB14498@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <4149B268.3060506@gnu.org> <20040916154758.GA15671@nevyn.them.org> <4149B92F.9080106@gnu.org> <20040916162209.GA7695@nevyn.them.org> <4149BF93.6050805@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4149BF93.6050805@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00278.txt.bz2 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