From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27851 invoked by alias); 8 May 2009 16:45:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 27805 invoked by uid 22791); 8 May 2009 16:45:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail3.caviumnetworks.com (HELO mail3.caviumnetworks.com) (12.108.191.235) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 May 2009 16:45:46 +0000 Received: from exch4.caveonetworks.com (Not Verified[192.168.16.23]) by mail3.caviumnetworks.com with MailMarshal (v6,2,2,3503) id ; Fri, 08 May 2009 12:45:30 -0400 Received: from exch4.caveonetworks.com ([192.168.16.23]) by exch4.caveonetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 8 May 2009 09:44:35 -0700 Received: from dd1.caveonetworks.com ([64.169.86.201]) by exch4.caveonetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 8 May 2009 09:44:35 -0700 Message-ID: <4A046173.8030704@caviumnetworks.com> Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 16:45:00 -0000 From: David Daney User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Muller CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove unecessary checks for macros in target.h References: <003301c9cfe3$e7547ed0$b5fd7c70$@u-strasbg.fr> In-Reply-To: <003301c9cfe3$e7547ed0$b5fd7c70$@u-strasbg.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00180.txt.bz2 Pierre Muller wrote: > target.h header has lots of > > #ifndef A_MACRO > #define A_MACRO default_implementation > #endif > constructs. > > This patch simply removes all these > unnecessary checks for macros that are not defined anymore in any > config file, nor by configure script. > (Unless the configure scripts might set macros > without having them inside their sources, > I checked all those macros by grep). > > Is this OK? > I don't know if it is OK. However, I do wonder if it would make sense to remove the macros altogether, and just push the expansions down into the code. If we really don't want to be able to switch in different implementations of these things, what is the point of an added layer of abstraction? David Daney