Re: [PATCH] Refactor common/target-common into meaningful bits

Yao Qi
2013-08-04T12:35:27Z

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 (é½å°§)