From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27619 invoked by alias); 15 Dec 2012 14:47:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 27611 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Dec 2012 14:47:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO 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; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:46:42 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A64E42E2C9; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 09:46:41 -0500 (EST) 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 slDto4nVeAUa; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 09:46:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41EF12E0E1; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 09:46:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5EC65C14DD; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 18:46:30 +0400 (RET) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:47:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA 2/3] gdbarch-ification of ravenscar-thread support. Message-ID: <20121215144630.GF3654@adacore.com> References: <1355497356-13922-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <1355497356-13922-2-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <50CB5F33.2030402@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50CB5F33.2030402@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2012-12/txt/msg00524.txt.bz2 > > The question: Right now, I put ravenscar-thread.o in the list of > > objects to always be built, regardless of whether or not GDB is > > configured with a target that can take advantage of it. I seems > > slightly wasteful, but somehow consistent with have solib-target > > always available, for instance. > > It's a little bit different, because solib-target is driven entirely > from data the target pushes to GDB. Any random embedded target can > enable that with no changes to GDB. Ravenscar support always > needs code changes in GDB, OTOH. Agreed. I made the changes, and ravenscar-thread.o is only pulled in when another arch-specific ravenscar-thread unit is included. > BTW, ARCH-ravenscar-thread.c would be a naming scheme more in line > with other files. Can we change that before adding more ports? No problem. I agree as well. I did it by adding a few extra patches on top of this one. That way, it allows me to provide patches that show the intent of the changes along them way... This is now a 6-patches series! Thanks for the feedback, -- Joel