From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24053 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2013 12:35:27 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 24021 invoked by uid 89); 4 Aug 2013 12:35:26 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Sun, 04 Aug 2013 12:35:25 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1V5xWn-0003ZP-S1 from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Sun, 04 Aug 2013 05:35:17 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.39]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 4 Aug 2013 05:35:18 -0700 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Sun, 4 Aug 2013 05:35:16 -0700 Message-ID: <51FE4A63.9030005@codesourcery.com> Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2013 12:35:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: , Tom Tromey , "'gdb-patches@sourceware.org'" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Refactor common/target-common into meaningful bits References: <51FA9649.5060008@codesourcery.com> <87vc3pfghs.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <51FAA061.4050005@codesourcery.com> <51FB7BFB.90100@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <51FB7BFB.90100@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00123.txt.bz2 On 08/02/2013 05:29 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > "target" is an overloaded word in GDB-speak. My idea for this new > directory, would be for it to hold the native target backend bits. > But "target" could also suggest that corelow.c, file.c, remote.c, etc. > should be put in this directory, while I don't think they should. If we don't move corelow.c and remote.c to "target" directory, that is not confusing. People will get to know the meaning of the directory when they list the files in this directory. For example, there is a directory "Target" in LLDB source tree lldb/source/Target, and I get to know what does "Target" mean in LLDB when I list the files in it. > > Sounds like a better name for this native target backend directory > should be invented. GDB uses *-nat.c naming for most of > these files, while GDBserver uses *-low.c. > > ( "low" itself in GDBserver is also ambiguous -- e.g., linux-low.h > introduces the "struct linux_target_ops", and we call_that_ the > "low target" at places (seems its my own fault for introducing > that ambiguity...) ... ) > > So to me that suggests "nat", "native" or "low", in my order > of preference. I feel "target" is better than them, so I prefer "target". -- Yao (齐尧)