From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: should deprecated_target_gdbarch_select_hack be un-deprecated?
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:17:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87haot5hjq.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <509D5C1F.2010507@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Fri, 09 Nov 2012 19:40:15 +0000")
>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
Tom> Finally, I wonder whether deprecated_target_gdbarch_select_hack should
Tom> be un-deprecated.
[...]
Pedro> Yes, I think so. We used to do nasty things with swapping out gdbarch's
Pedro> fields, which I believe would be the gross "hack" part, but that is gone.
How about this?
I think my only real concern is the name I chose.
Tom
2012-11-13 Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
* gdbarch.h, gdbarch.c: Rebuild.
* gdbarch.sh (select_target_gdbarch): Rename from
deprecated_target_gdbarch_select_hack.
* arch-utils.c (gdbarch_update_p): Update.
(set_gdbarch_from_file): Update.
diff --git a/gdb/arch-utils.c b/gdb/arch-utils.c
index 71d17cf..c755d6d 100644
--- a/gdb/arch-utils.c
+++ b/gdb/arch-utils.c
@@ -522,7 +522,7 @@ gdbarch_update_p (struct gdbarch_info info)
"New architecture %s (%s) selected\n",
host_address_to_string (new_gdbarch),
gdbarch_bfd_arch_info (new_gdbarch)->printable_name);
- deprecated_target_gdbarch_select_hack (new_gdbarch);
+ select_target_gdbarch (new_gdbarch);
return 1;
}
@@ -556,7 +556,7 @@ set_gdbarch_from_file (bfd *abfd)
if (gdbarch == NULL)
error (_("Architecture of file not recognized."));
- deprecated_target_gdbarch_select_hack (gdbarch);
+ select_target_gdbarch (gdbarch);
}
/* Initialize the current architecture. Update the ``set
diff --git a/gdb/gdbarch.c b/gdb/gdbarch.c
index 26dd404..d119cc0 100644
--- a/gdb/gdbarch.c
+++ b/gdb/gdbarch.c
@@ -4666,7 +4666,7 @@ gdbarch_find_by_info (struct gdbarch_info info)
/* Make the specified architecture current. */
void
-deprecated_target_gdbarch_select_hack (struct gdbarch *new_gdbarch)
+select_target_gdbarch (struct gdbarch *new_gdbarch)
{
gdb_assert (new_gdbarch != NULL);
gdb_assert (new_gdbarch->initialized_p);
diff --git a/gdb/gdbarch.h b/gdb/gdbarch.h
index 9d2bac3..0e17ad0 100644
--- a/gdb/gdbarch.h
+++ b/gdb/gdbarch.h
@@ -1382,15 +1382,9 @@ extern int gdbarch_update_p (struct gdbarch_info info);
extern struct gdbarch *gdbarch_find_by_info (struct gdbarch_info info);
-/* Helper function. Set the global "target_gdbarch" to "gdbarch".
+/* Helper function. Set the 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. */
-
-extern void deprecated_target_gdbarch_select_hack (struct gdbarch *gdbarch);
+extern void select_target_gdbarch (struct gdbarch *gdbarch);
/* Register per-architecture data-pointer.
diff --git a/gdb/gdbarch.sh b/gdb/gdbarch.sh
index 53a52b1..c4ab43f 100755
--- a/gdb/gdbarch.sh
+++ b/gdb/gdbarch.sh
@@ -1331,15 +1331,9 @@ extern int gdbarch_update_p (struct gdbarch_info info);
extern struct gdbarch *gdbarch_find_by_info (struct gdbarch_info info);
-/* Helper function. Set the global "target_gdbarch" to "gdbarch".
+/* Helper function. Set the 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. */
-
-extern void deprecated_target_gdbarch_select_hack (struct gdbarch *gdbarch);
+extern void select_target_gdbarch (struct gdbarch *gdbarch);
/* Register per-architecture data-pointer.
@@ -2281,7 +2275,7 @@ gdbarch_find_by_info (struct gdbarch_info info)
/* Make the specified architecture current. */
void
-deprecated_target_gdbarch_select_hack (struct gdbarch *new_gdbarch)
+select_target_gdbarch (struct gdbarch *new_gdbarch)
{
gdb_assert (new_gdbarch != NULL);
gdb_assert (new_gdbarch->initialized_p);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-13 21:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-09 1:52 [PATCH] Multi-process + multi-arch: GDB Pedro Alves
2012-11-09 5:26 ` H.J. Lu
2012-11-09 10:07 ` Pedro Alves
2012-11-09 18:24 ` Tom Tromey
2012-11-09 18:30 ` Pedro Alves
2012-11-09 18:32 ` Tom Tromey
2012-11-09 18:47 ` Pedro Alves
2012-11-09 19:08 ` Tom Tromey
2012-11-09 19:14 ` Pedro Alves
2012-11-09 19:18 ` Tom Tromey
2012-11-09 19:40 ` should deprecated_target_gdbarch_select_hack be un-deprecated? Pedro Alves
2012-11-13 21:17 ` Tom Tromey [this message]
2012-11-14 13:54 ` Pedro Alves
2012-11-14 15:34 ` Tom Tromey
2012-11-10 16:25 ` [PATCH] Multi-process + multi-arch: GDB Michael Eager
2012-11-13 20:50 ` Tom Tromey
2012-11-14 13:48 ` Pedro Alves
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87haot5hjq.fsf@fleche.redhat.com \
--to=tromey@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox