From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21276 invoked by alias); 8 May 2005 13:59:38 -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 21265 invoked by uid 22791); 8 May 2005 13:59:35 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 08 May 2005 13:59:35 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1DUmIq-0001vb-7g; Sun, 08 May 2005 09:58:40 -0400 Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 14:24:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Unconditionally include shared library code Message-ID: <20050508135839.GA7384@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200505021251.j42CpxIZ010109@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <200505081315.j48DF8AG030440@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200505081315.j48DF8AG030440@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00189.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20050508142400.GllYyj4M9FGqLaH44Wt4Nm4BROEOcXg1Mue4-yTPqJ8@z> On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:15:08PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 14:51:59 +0200 (CEST) > From: Mark Kettenis > > This patch is an attempt to be able to link in the generic shared > library code in solib.c while attempting to keep the shared library > implementations that have not yet been converted to use the generic > code (Windows, coff) working. It allows me to get rid of > DEPRECATED_TM_FILE in basically every *BSD target. > > I introduce two new files shlib.c, shlib.h. I need these because > solib.h contains both the prototypes and macro defenitions for the > shared library stuff. In the long run, I should be able to get rid of > either shlib.[ch] or solib.[ch] again. I took the opportunity to give > various functions a somewhat more logical name. > > Comments are welcome. It'd also be great if this could be tested on > Cygwin. > > Hmm, no comments yet. If this is really so uncontroversial, I'm going > to check it in next weekend ;-). My only comment is that I really don't like having both shlib* and solib* (files and interface names). Could you explain a little more why shlib.h is necessary? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC