From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11323 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2011 21:19:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 11314 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Feb 2011 21:19:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_DB,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:19:03 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p1NLHfwT010469; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:17:41 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id p1NLHdhA015543; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:17:39 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:35:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201102232117.p1NLHdhA015543@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: yao@codesourcery.com CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <4D649A89.6040909@codesourcery.com> (message from Yao Qi on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:26:33 +0800) Subject: Re: [patch] Move common macros to i386-common.h References: <4D57AB12.1050708@codesourcery.com> <4D649A89.6040909@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00660.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:26:33 +0800 > From: Yao Qi > > On 02/13/2011 09:40 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > I'm just back from a 3+-week holiday. I'm not buying into the "share more > > stuff between gdb and gdbserver" mantra yet. Please hold off on this > > until > > I've gotten caught up with my mail and had a chance to think about all this. > > Mark, > Do you ever have a change to look at this patch? I am inclined to > rename i386-common.h to i386-dbg-reg.h, since it is really about debug > registers. OK, here we go. I don't have an issue with this diff per-se, but more with the direction this is going. A long time ago, gdb and gdbserver shared a lot of code. The gdbserver code could only be built on a limited set of platforms though. As a result gdbserver builds ended up being broken often because of changes made to only gdb. That's one of the reasons why we split the two codebases. Now, years later, people are moving in the other direction again, and I'm worried it will bring back the problems we had in the past. I'm particularly worried about changes I'll make myself. My primary development platform is OpenBSD which isn't supported by gdbserver. So I won't be building the gdbserver code, so I won't notice any problems my diffs (and other people's diffs) will introduce in gdbserver. Sharing architecture-specific #define's is probably fine. Sharing some simple basec support functions may also be ok. But I don't think sharing more complicated code (such as the code manipulating the i386 debug registers) is a good idea. Mark