From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13757 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2011 18:48:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 13748 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Apr 2011 18:48:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_DB,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:48:21 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p3DIm20r025956 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:48:02 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3DIm0Nf023821 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:48:02 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p3DIm0OB026042; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:48:00 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p3DIlwmB026039; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:47:58 +0200 Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:48:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Yao Qi , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [try 2nd, patch] Move common macros to i386-dbg-reg.h Message-ID: <20110413184758.GA25922@host1.jankratochvil.net> 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> <20110413170500.GA11452@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110413170500.GA11452@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2011-04/txt/msg00194.txt.bz2 On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:05:00 +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote: > 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. So far I try (not too actively as I have to maintain primarily linux-nat) and at least prefer the plan of Pedro as he posted it in: Re: [0/9]#2 Fix lost siginfo_t http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-08/msg00544.html Therefore so far the plan seems clear to me, unless anyone disagrees. The Yao's patches seem to support this general direction. Thanks, Jan