From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5001 invoked by alias); 17 May 2012 12:38:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 4989 invoked by uid 22791); 17 May 2012 12:38:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL 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; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:38:41 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF2F51C61EC; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:38:40 -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 ZO-OWmQ7PHRs; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:38:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F56F1C61E1; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:38:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A1938145616; Thu, 17 May 2012 05:38:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 12:38:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Mark Kettenis , thomas@codesourcery.com, tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, kevinb@redhat.com Subject: Re: [SH] regs command Message-ID: <20120517123827.GB10253@adacore.com> References: <20120516142633.GV10253@adacore.com> <87zk98qe8t.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120516165730.GY10253@adacore.com> <87pqa4qbzp.fsf@schwinge.name> <87r4ukox0y.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120516190539.GZ10253@adacore.com> <201205171109.q4HB9Ljc005742@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2012-05/txt/msg00649.txt.bz2 > What's the technical reason and what do you propose as the alternative? > Personally I see no problems with a hierarchical structure of initialisers > as long as the hierarchy is well-defined so that people can rely on that. > I can give you a name of a complex project that works very well with such > an arrangement, and they actually have as many as eight levels. I would tend to agree with that, I don't see what we would have to lose by doing so. I even thought that we could also include -nat files as well in the mix. For instance: - all files except the files to follow, in undefined order; - all -nat files, in undefined order; - all -tdep files, in undefined order. -- Joel