From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7373 invoked by alias); 17 May 2002 17:17:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7337 invoked from network); 17 May 2002 17:17:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 May 2002 17:17:12 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96E553E98; Fri, 17 May 2002 13:17:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CE53B21.6050003@cygnus.com> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 10:17:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020429 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Clifton Cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Add support for target switches in simulator References: <200205171236.NAA22311@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00722.txt.bz2 > Hi Richard, > > >> > > How does this proposed facility compare to that provided by >> > > sim/common/sim-options*? > >> > >> > It is a similar kind of thing accept that it has two advantages: >> > >> > * It works for simulators that do not use sim-common.[ch] (such as >> > the ARM simualtor). > >> >> Is there a good reason why the ARM simulator is not using sim-common? > > > I doubt it. I suspect that it is just a historical thing. It is non-trivial. Sim-common is somewhat monolythic (all or nothing) and that makes it less than easy to use just some parts of the framework. In hindsight (hey I'm part responsible :-) I think it should have been less macro centric and more cleanly modula(1). That way it would be easier to integrate existing simulators - have them use just the parts they need. I've filed change-requests suggesting this. enjoy, Andrew (1) I learnt two lessons, avoid `typedef struct' and avoid `macros' :-)