From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3878 invoked by alias); 15 Dec 2010 19:51:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 3842 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Dec 2010 19:51:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:51:53 +0000 Received: (qmail 27474 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2010 19:51:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 15 Dec 2010 19:51:51 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] gdb: bfin: new port Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:51:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.33-29-realtime; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Mike Frysinger , toolchain-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org References: <1292431646-3744-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> <201012151917.03834.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201012151439.03130.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <201012151439.03130.vapier@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201012151951.49237.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-12/txt/msg00320.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 15 December 2010 19:39:02, Mike Frysinger wrote: > we run Linux. uClinux is an old naming. also, bfin-linux-uclibc is a > supported target, so i tend to use bfin-*-*linux*. > > in the past, any Blackfin gdb was sufficient to debug any Blackfin target, but > i guess i could preserve this with --enable-targets=... ? Right. Or just build for bfin-linux, and you can still debug non-linux stuff. Best avoid getting into triplet namespace trouble in case someone adds support for some other OS. > yes it's long, but i thought the emphasis was on not breaking string literals. > screws up grep and such. While that's true, I never heard of us making exceptions on that ground. We have quite a number of string literals broken up. -- Pedro Alves