Re: [rfc] first cut of solib-som.[ch]

[Randolph Chung <randolph@tausq.org>]

> I'm comfortable with either approach.  It makes a certain amount of
> sense to initialize the solib related portions of the tdep struct from
> within a solib-*.c file.  OTOH, it also makes sense to not clutter the
> solib-*.c file with knowledge of a particular architecture's tdep
> struct.  In this case, solib-som.c will probably not be used by any
> other architectures, so it doesn't make much difference.  I'll leave
> it to you to choose the approach which you like better.

well, for me it boils down to a dependency problem, which is still a bit
tricky at the moment.

what i would like to see is:
32-bit hpux targets will build only solib-som.*, and only support 32-bit
	debugging
64-bit hpux targets will build both solib-som.* and solib-pa64.*, and
	support both 32-bit and 64-bit debugging

the problem in this scenario is that in the common hpux file (i.e.
hppa-hpux-tdep.c), in order to support both configurations, we cannot
refer to anything that is in solib-pa64.*.

this is already a problem if i need to call e.g. pa64_solib_select (),
and it becomes worse if we expose the solib methods to the tdep file.

i'm thinking that the best way to do this is:
- have the 32-bit hpux configs define PA_SOM_ONLY (as they do now)
- unconditionally build both solib-som.c and solib-pa64.c into all hpux
  targets
- in solib-pa64.c, make everything compile out if PA_SOM_ONLY is
  defined, except for a stub pa64_solib_select ()

is there a cleaner way?

randolph
-- 
Randolph Chung
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, hppa/ia64 ports
http://www.tausq.org/