From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25012 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2011 17:05:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 25002 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Apr 2011 17:05:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_DB 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; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:05:06 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE052BAC96; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:05:05 -0400 (EDT) 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 QtOPPUnkEQsA; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:05:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12BDE2BB2D2; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:05:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A24AE1459B0; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:05:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:05:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Yao Qi Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [try 2nd, patch] Move common macros to i386-dbg-reg.h Message-ID: <20110413170500.GA11452@adacore.com> References: <4D57AB12.1050708@codesourcery.com> <4D79AD80.5050803@codesourcery.com> <4D9167CD.4070205@codesourcery.com> <4D9DC513.6040403@codesourcery.com> <201104071553.p37FrP3T016810@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4DA260EF.1000105@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DA260EF.1000105@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: 2011-04/txt/msg00189.txt.bz2 > "a fully featured native GDB replacement or a lightweight remote > protocol stub" is *not* related to this patch at all. I am unable to do > such choice. This patch (and other patches of mine in this area) is to > reduce source code duplication as much as possible. No matter what > model we choose for gdbserver, this patch still makes sense, IMO. It does, but before we do so, I think it's important to know how we are going to reduce this duplication. I haven't looked at the patch, so I can't comment on it, but I think we just need a plan of what and how we're going to avoid that. -- Joel