From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27674 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2005 21:35:09 -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 27667 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2005 21:35:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 Apr 2005 21:35:05 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1DICkK-0005Ob-Jp for ; Sun, 03 Apr 2005 17:35:04 -0400 Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 21:35:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: mips-linux software single step versus sigreturn Message-ID: <20050403213503.GA20654@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050403042553.GA28315@nevyn.them.org> <200504031918.j33JIOIV016132@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200504031918.j33JIOIV016132@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 09:18:24PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 23:25:54 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Any comments? > > Is the extra indirection via os_methods really necessary? I'm not thrilled with it either, but when Andrew maintained the MIPS port, he expressed opposition to moving MIPS's gdbarch_tdep to mips-tdep.h. The original patch was here: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-10/msg00119.html The objection was here: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-11/msg00038.html If the consensus has swung the other way, I'll revise... -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC