From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30424 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2011 11:03:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 30291 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Apr 2011 11:03:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_DB,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:03:25 +0000 Received: (qmail 4165 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2011 11:03:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.102?) (yao@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 25 Apr 2011 11:03:24 -0000 Message-ID: <4DB554F9.6000004@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:03:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [try 2nd, patch] Move common macros to i386-dbg-reg.h References: <4D57AB12.1050708@codesourcery.com> <4D79AD80.5050803@codesourcery.com> <4D9167CD.4070205@codesourcery.com> <4D9DC513.6040403@codesourcery.com> <201104071553.p37FrP3T016810@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4DA260EF.1000105@codesourcery.com> <20110413170500.GA11452@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20110413170500.GA11452@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 2011-04/txt/msg00439.txt.bz2 On 04/14/2011 01:05 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> "a fully featured native GDB replacement or a lightweight remote >> protocol stub" is *not* related to this patch at all. I am unable to do >> such choice. This patch (and other patches of mine in this area) is to >> reduce source code duplication as much as possible. No matter what >> model we choose for gdbserver, this patch still makes sense, IMO. > > It does, but before we do so, I think it's important to know how > we are going to reduce this duplication. I haven't looked at the patch, > so I can't comment on it, but I think we just need a plan of what and > how we're going to avoid that. > How do you think of a "plan" I posted http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-04/msg00202.html How do think of this patch? I copy the link here for you reference, http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-03/msg00648.html -- Yao (齐尧)