From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13756 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2011 14:54:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 13747 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Feb 2011 14:54:39 -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; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:54:35 +0000 Received: (qmail 12074 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2011 14:54:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 28 Feb 2011 14:54:33 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: question about the common/ subdir (was "Re: Ping: Merge duplicated macros in linux-nat.c and linux-low.c") Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:00:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-25-generic; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Joel Brobecker References: <4D5E2021.2070107@codesourcery.com> <4D6B96DC.5090606@codesourcery.com> <20110228140639.GG30306@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20110228140639.GG30306@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201102281454.32221.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: 2011-02/txt/msg00893.txt.bz2 On Monday 28 February 2011 14:06:39, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > gdb/ > > > > > > * linux-nat.c: Move common macros to ... > > > Include linux-ptrace.h. > > > * common/linux-ptrace.h: ... here. New. > > > > > > gdb/gdbserver/ > > > > > > * linux-low.c: Move common macros to linux-ptrace.h. > > > Include linux-ptrace.h. > > > * Makefile.in (linux_ptrace_h): New. > > > (linux-low.o): Depends on linux-ptrace.h. > > Speaking of which, what was the latest decision regarding the > way we would handle the sources in common/. I thought that we > were going to delete the configury and Makefile, and treat this > the same way we treat the gnulib/ directory. Was that ever > decided? I personally would like to give this idea a try and > see where it goes, but I'm not enough of an expert to really > predict whether it's going to be better or not. I can look > at producing patches, though. IMO, we should go ahead with that, see . In sum, I'm convinced the trouble of listing an object in two Makefiles is negligiceably compared to the pain we've been getting ourselves into as long as: - the core set of headers between gdb and gdbserver aren't harmonized/shared, and, - we still need to maintain separate AC_CHECK_HEADERS & co in gdb's and gdbserver's configury&makefilery. This one is a major point against the current status quo, IMO. I've pointed out Yet Another Way to handle this in the url above (but as I said there, I'm not sure we want to be playing with this stuff at this time). And it may be well be a totally stupid idea. :-) -- Pedro Alves