From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10799 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2012 08:46:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 10692 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Mar 2012 08:46:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,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; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:45:40 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2J8jILl005564 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 19 Mar 2012 04:45:18 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-28.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.28]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2J8jEkw014376 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Mar 2012 04:45:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:46:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: merge std-operator.def and ada-operator.def? Message-ID: <20120319084514.GA29240@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <1331940061-10739-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1331940061-10739-1-git-send-email-brobecker@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: 2012-03/txt/msg00694.txt.bz2 Hi Joel, On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 00:20:59 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Thinking about all this, and knowing the fact that std-operator actually > also contains some language-specific operators as well (Eg Fortran's > OP_F90_RANGE), it seemed to me that this separation was causing some > unnecessary complexity in our code. (a) It would make some sense with GDB plugins but that plan was IIRC abandoned in the favor of Python scripting. (b) The Ada operators should be at least very each marked as Ada specific in its definition comment. Moreover I believe it would be worth really renaming them all to OP_ADA_* instead. Unrelated to this patchset: After I changed it to the *.def files with OP_* names ctags no longer work to jump to OP_* definitions. But I do not see how to fix that. Thanks, Jan