From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18041 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2004 16:32:37 -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 18033 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2004 16:32:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 Sep 2004 16:32:35 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8GGWP9D023923 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:32:30 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8GGWOr00583; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:32:24 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF5828D2; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:30:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4149BF93.6050805@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:32:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040831 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/threads] Eliminate lin-lwp.c References: <4149B268.3060506@gnu.org> <20040916154758.GA15671@nevyn.them.org> <4149B92F.9080106@gnu.org> <20040916162209.GA7695@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040916162209.GA7695@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00274.txt.bz2 > On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>>> >Er, why are you doing this? Why isn't it possible to have a separate >>>> >target vector without moving all the code around? >> >>> >>> You mean add a "lin-lwp.h" which exports everything so that >>> "linux-nat.c" can construct that vector, or conversly have "linux-nat.h" >>> export everything so that "lin-lwp.c" can construct the vector? >>> >>> Bleauh! Such a separation is artifical (although perhaphs the single >>> file should be called inf-linux.[hc]). > > > Yes, that's what I meant. I'd like to preserve the revision history > when possible. The revision history or the existing files and their contents? The former is always available in CVS. The later, as I noted, is just an artifical separation that will complicate the objective of cleaning up this code. I do see merit in creating an a new inf-linux.c (to be consistent with inf-ptrace, and inf-child), and I think I'll revise the patch to do that. Andrew