From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-39368-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 11905 invoked by alias); 12 May 2005 12:42:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 11598 invoked from network); 12 May 2005 12:41:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 12 May 2005 12:41:43 -0000
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DWD0Y-0007k1-MX; Thu, 12 May 2005 08:41:42 -0400
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:00:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFA] Get rid of xm-go32.h (was: [COMMIT] Get rid of xm-cygwin.h)
Message-ID: <20050512124142.GA29462@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
References: <200505060807.j468795E005472@jop31.nfra.nl> <01c55224$Blat.v2.4$7c5b84c0@zahav.net.il> <01c556d0$Blat.v2.4$7f0d6de0@zahav.net.il>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <01c556d0$Blat.v2.4$7f0d6de0@zahav.net.il>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i
X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00271.txt.bz2

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 11:55:30AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 13:14:08 +0300
> > From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
> > CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> > 
> > > Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 10:07:09 +0200
> > > From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@gnu.org>
> > > CC: eliz@gnu.org
> > > 
> > > Eli, any chance you can get rid of xm-go32.h too?
> > 
> > Chance, yes.  We have a public holiday coming up, I hope I will have
> > time to finally keep my promise to Andrew.
> 
> The holiday came, and here's what I have in my sandbox.  Is this way
> of solving the issue of non-standard init file names is acceptable?
> If so, I will commit the changes.
> 
> Note that tm-cisco.h and tm-os68k.h override the standard definition
> of GDBINIT_FILENAME.  Should we switch those platforms to the dynamic
> initialization as well?

FWIW, I like this solution.

Do we still need either of those targets?  I haven't seen reports of
anyone using them in the time I've been a GDB developer.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC