From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21512 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2006 20:33:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 21504 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jan 2006 20:33:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:33:54 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4101248CDA4; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:33:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 14359-01-2; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:33:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (joel.gnat.com [205.232.38.116]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF91348CC15; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:33:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 8E16647E7E; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:33:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:33:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] New inf-procfs module (replacing procfs) Message-ID: <20060127203351.GC1457@adacore.com> References: <20060113173921.GJ10275@adacore.com> <200601132027.k0DKRvSf021579@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060114033315.GL10275@adacore.com> <43DA7D5F.20208@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43DA7D5F.20208@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00457.txt.bz2 > Something we had always considered, but shied away from, > is to actually split procfs.c into two separate modules: > one for the old API, and one for the new. It's the only > way you can really get rid of all those ifdefs, and if > you're considering a major re-org anyway... > > Just putting out the idea. An interesting idea. The only concern I have is code duplication, it'd be nice to be able to continue sharing the code that is already shared. I'll keep that in mind! -- Joel