From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14537 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2004 20:29:08 -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 14506 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2004 20:29:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 Sep 2004 20:29:06 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1C82sM-0007BC-Ev; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:29:06 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:29:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/threads] Eliminate lin-lwp.c Message-ID: <20040916202905.GA26644@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> <20040916173816.GB14498@nevyn.them.org> <4149F32F.6030807@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4149F32F.6030807@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00283.txt.bz2 On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 04:10:23PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>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. > > Yes, I want to avoid any artifical organization that will complicate the > objective of cleaning up this code. > > What we need to preserve is the accumulated knowledge of bugs and > mis-implemented features - we do that by extending our test infrastructure. I do not think that leaving these functions where they are will complicate the process of cleaning them up. Could you explain why you see this as a problem? > >>>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-*. > > linux-inf.c? inf-linux.c is equally (if not more) consistent with the > new inf-ptrace.c and inf-child.c. inf-* are currently more or less target agnostic; just "unixy". GDB convention says that native support for Linux - that's what this is - belongs in linux-nat.c. If some of it is left in lin-lwp.c for historical reasons, that's a separate issue. -- Daniel Jacobowitz