From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21523 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2004 21:25:48 -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 21512 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2004 21:25:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 Sep 2004 21:25:47 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1C83lD-0000sM-Ev; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:25:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:25:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/threads] Eliminate lin-lwp.c Message-ID: <20040916212547.GB28956@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> <20040916202905.GA26644@nevyn.them.org> <414A017F.8090803@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <414A017F.8090803@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00286.txt.bz2 On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 05:11:27PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >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? > > As with inf-child and inf-ptrace, an important objective here is to get > all the inf-linux methods local to a file so that we can ensure that all > accesses are strictly via the target vector. Leaving them where they > are defeats this, a little. So the reason you want them all in one file is so that you can make them all static, and ensure they aren't accessed "on the side". Is that right? That's a good technical reason for this patch, one which I didn't think of and you didn't explain. I'm just trying to get you to share your wisdom with all us other maintainers. With that explanation presented, I have no objection. Let's make sure Michael agrees. > >>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". > > inf-child, the current root object is very un "unixy". Hmm, that's because it doesn't do anything. I hadn't looked since you created the new inf-* files (the confusion with inf*, ugh!). > > 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. > > Here we're going to end up with: > > inf-i386-linux is-a inf-linux (is-a inf-ptrace?) is-a inf-child > > Lets not be shy with the code base. inf-linux.c, containing the > inf-linux class, is going to be far more consistent in the long term. > (the only alt I see is a name reversal of linux-inf, child-inf, > ptrace-inf, ...). I'm saying that don't see the point of this renaming. Having the native support for GNU/Linux, whatever it inherits from, continue to live in linux-nat.c is more natural to me. > What about I fix up i386 and then come back for the others? I don't understand what you mean. -- Daniel Jacobowitz