From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7859 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2014 11:57:16 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 7712 invoked by uid 89); 27 Jun 2014 11:57:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:57:13 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5RBvBjh013768 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 27 Jun 2014 07:57:11 -0400 Received: from blade.nx (ovpn-116-77.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.77]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5RBvAkf010733; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 07:57:11 -0400 Received: by blade.nx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0CCED2640BC; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:57:09 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:57:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: Mark Kettenis Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Refactor shared code in {i386,amd64}-linux-nat.c Message-ID: <20140627115709.GA11337@blade.nx> References: <1403860209-475-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <201406270928.s5R9SZPG020219@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201406270928.s5R9SZPG020219@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00934.txt.bz2 Hi Mark, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > From: Gary Benson > > Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 10:10:02 +0100 > > > > This series refactors the shared code in {i386,amd64}-linux-nat.c into > > the new files x86-linux-nat.[ch] and i386-linux-nat.h. [snip] > > Is this ok to commit? > > Sorry, no. Perhaps more code can be shared between i386-linux-nat.c > and amd64-linux-nat.c, but this goes too far and turns things into > #ifdef spagetthi. It also breaks established naming conventions. In hindsight the "Merge {i386,amd64}_linux_read_description" patch is pretty ugly. I'll rework it as per Pedro's suggestion elsewhere in this thread. Regarding the naming convention, there's a problem on the GDB side (as opposed to gdbserver) in that "i386" is overloaded. In some places it means "i386 and amd64" and in other places it means "i386 (not amd64)". This makes things difficult to understand, so I've adopted the gdbserver's convention where "x86" means "i386 and x86_64" and "i386" means "i386 (not amd64)". Thanks, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/