From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14352 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2011 06:36:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 14230 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2011 06:36:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:36:48 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 412172BAC9C; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 01:36:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id pKqqHsKBTW+I; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 01:36:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57352BAC9B; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 01:36:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6628E14586B; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:36:41 +0400 (RET) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:41:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Yao Qi Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Move common macros to i386-common.h Message-ID: <20110217063641.GC15527@adacore.com> References: <4D57AB12.1050708@codesourcery.com> <4D5CBF2D.9020101@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D5CBF2D.9020101@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-02/txt/msg00409.txt.bz2 > w.r.t this specific patch, its "potential benefit" is that, some > duplicated functions (i386_length_and_rw_bits, and > i386_{insert|remove}_aligned_watchpoint) in i386-nat.c and > gdbserver/i386-low.c can be merged together. Please take this into account. Thinking beyond that, I think that GDB should conceptualy contain a internal GDBserver. That way, when we port GDB to an architecture, we're pretty much porting GDBserver as well, for free. And when someone only ported GDBserver at one point, we don't need to redo that work when porting GDB itself. -- Joel