From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4192 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2002 21:14:00 -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 4179 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2002 21:13:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Jul 2002 21:13:58 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827CE3CD3; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 17:13:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D2B5212.3020302@ges.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 14:15:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020613 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [5.2.1] quiet warnings for gdbreplay.c References: <20020627204720.A13445@dragon.nuxi.com> <3D1C8AEF.5020508@ges.redhat.com> <20020628180820.GA9115@nevyn.them.org> <3D1CD337.2010205@ges.redhat.com> <20020628213904.GA15095@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00163.txt.bz2 > I dunno, I appreciate being able to run configure in the gdbserver/ > directory. It means you don't need to a terminal library for your > target if you just want gdbserver. A lot of people have seemed to > appreciate this. Ah, ok, I see your problem. Yes that does make things easier. GDBserver on its own is far more likely to configure/build and is easier to drag around. Suggest a comment (I've no idea where) explaining this (or even mention it in GDB's doco - something like stating that gdbserver can be built/configured separate to GDB). >> More seriously, I think someone hacking on gdbreplay is likely to also >> be hacking on GDB. Consequently, they are going to expect the two >> directories to follow the same coding conventions. > > > We discussed this. The two directories share no code except for > signals/signals.c off in its own space. If they share headers, some > care is called for. They are not part of the same program! True, but they are part of the same ``system''. >> I had > >> >eliminated all references to the gdb source code but then I introduced >> >an include of "gdb_proc_service.h", since the alternative was just >> >duplicating it; I have the feeling we should move that and headers like >> >gdb_string.h somewhere common - are they include/gdb/ candidates? > >> >> You mean #include "gdb/gdb_string.h"? I think include/gdb/ is for >> external interfaces that are at some level controlled by GDB. > > > Then do we want a separate gdb/gdbint/ directory for this? I strongly > prefer that headers shared between GDB and other directories be clearly > marked and separated. That'd give me a place to move > gdb_proc_service.h, too. I think it would be easier to just clarify the guidelines for ``gdb_XXXX.h'' files - that they be independant as they are included by GDB and friends. In the mean time, I guess the status quo remains. Andrew