From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11417 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2014 12:57:03 -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 11367 invoked by uid 89); 11 Jul 2014 12:56:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS 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, 11 Jul 2014 12:56:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6BCusGx024150 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:56:55 -0400 Received: from blade.nx (ovpn-116-128.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.128]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6BCusBc014000; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:56:54 -0400 Received: by blade.nx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 769EE2640C5; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:56:53 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:25:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: Tom Tromey Cc: Doug Evans , gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] Add target/symbol.h, update users Message-ID: <20140711125653.GD2695@blade.nx> References: <1404902255-11101-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <1404902255-11101-13-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <87bnsxdrtj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87d2dd81of.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87d2dd81of.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00264.txt.bz2 Tom Tromey wrote: > Doug> As target/* scales up, is there a risk of the code becoming > Doug> harder to read if target_ is used as a general prefix for > Doug> things in target/*? Dunno. Just wondering. > > My long term goal is that gdb and gdbserver share the entire target > stack. I think these patches further this goal. I don't find the > result harder to read at all. Doug, are you ok for me to leave it as it is, or, do you have an alternative you would like me to implement instead? Thanks, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/