Re: [PATCH] Move arch/tdesc.h to common/common-tdesc.h

[Philipp Rudo <prudo@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

Hi Yao,

sorry, i misunderstood you.  You are right cleaning up gdbservers Makefile
would be better.  I'm currently pretty occupied, but I can give it a try later
on.  Let's see what I can do.

Philipp

On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 21:24:35 +0000
Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Philipp Rudo <prudo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Of course you could name the *.h file anything you want.  But from my point of
> > view the *.c and *.h files belonging together should have the same name.
> > Having this in mind you cannot call it common/tdesc.h because in
> > gdbserver/Makefile:OBS the directory is ignored and both (common/tdesc.c and
> > gdbserver/tdec.c) would be compiled to tdesc.o, (most likely) leading to
> > unintended behavior.  
> 
> What I want is to compile gdbserver/tdesc.c to tdesc.o, common/tdesc.c to
> common/tdesc.o in gdbserver build directory.
> 
> >  
> >> > My next set of patches will then add common/tdesc.c.
> >> > This is slightly more tricky because we now build two tdesc.o files.  
> >>
> >> I am inclined to create common/ directory in gdb and gdbserver build
> >> tree, and put the object files in the right directory.  
> >
> > Yao, what do you mean with this?  There already is a common/ directory with
> > code shared by gdb and gdbserver.  The thing is that tdesc.h was in arch/ not
> > in common/. Alan, Omair (if I recall right) and I agreed that it would be
> > better to move it to common/ because arch/ should only contain architecture
> > specific code.  Or am I understanding you wrong?
> >  
> 
> It is build tree, instead of source tree.  What I want is to have common/ in gdb
> and gdbserver build directory respectively.  I am not against moving
> arch/tdesc.h
> to common/tdesc.h.
>