From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4578 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2012 19:40:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 4569 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Nov 2012 19:40:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Nov 2012 19:40:32 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA9JeVvC001318 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:40:31 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA9JeFSN019442; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:40:21 -0500 Message-ID: <509D5C1F.2010507@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 19:40:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121016 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: should deprecated_target_gdbarch_select_hack be un-deprecated? References: <20121109015149.13597.39322.stgit@brno.lan> <87lieaeisb.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <509D4BCA.6020704@redhat.com> <87haoyeiev.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <509D4FC9.2060208@redhat.com> <877gpuegsb.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <877gpuegsb.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-11/txt/msg00265.txt.bz2 On 11/09/2012 07:07 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > > Finally, I wonder whether deprecated_target_gdbarch_select_hack should > be un-deprecated. The comment says: > > /* Helper function. Set the global "target_gdbarch" to "gdbarch". > > FIXME: kettenis/20031124: Of the functions that follow, only > gdbarch_from_bfd is supposed to survive. The others will > dissappear since in the future GDB will (hopefully) be truly > multi-arch. However, for now we're still stuck with the concept of > a single active architecture. */ > > It seems to me that we have settled on a somewhat different design; but > also that the badness indicated by this comment no longer exists. Yes, I think so. We used to do nasty things with swapping out gdbarch's fields, which I believe would be the gross "hack" part, but that is gone. -- Pedro Alves