Re: [PATCH/RFC] Refactor gdb.reverse/insn-reverse.c

[Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>]

On 01/26/2017 10:39 AM, Luis Machado wrote:
> On 01/25/2017 04:28 PM, Yao Qi wrote:
>> On 17-01-25 12:11:01, Luis Machado wrote:
>>> That is a reasonable assessment. insn-reverse.[c|exp] is redundant
>>> and IMO
>>> would benefit from renaming too.
>>>
>>> The support in "insn-support-<arch>.c means support for a set of
>>> instructions for this particular subsystem of gdb, therefore why i
>>> went with
>>> that name. Thinking about it further, instruction decoding support is
>>> the
>>> basis/foundation of reverse debugging, without which things would not
>>> work
>>> properly. But i may be overthinking. :-)
>>
>> Every test is about testing some sort of support.  Breakpoint test is
>> about breakpoint support, tracepoint test is about tracepoint support.
>> We don't have to explicitly mention "support" in the test case name,
>> IMO.
>>
>> It is easy to relate "insn-reverse-<arch>.c" to "insn-reverse.c".
>> If you think "reverse" is redundant, "insn.c" and "insn-<arch>.c" is
>> acceptable to me too.
>>
>
> It is not terribly important. I've reverted to the original name
> (insn-reverse-<arch>.c), updated things to mention the new name and
> pushed this as 8b00c176168dc7b0d78d0dc1f7d42f915375dc4a.
>
> Patch attached.
>
> Thanks for reviewing,
> Luis

Forgot to effectively add the files. I'll fix this in a bit.