Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Introduce "gdb/configure.nat" (and delete "gdb/config/*/*.mh" files)

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 05/05/2017 04:57 AM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:

>> Also, I think "host_makefile_frag" was lowercase because
>> that variable is not meant to be passed to make or any
>> tool make invokes.
> 
> I was naming everything using uppercase because I thought it would be
> more consistent.  

But it'd make it inconsistent with all the other lowercase variables
in Makefile.in that are acsubsted and not passed down to some child.

>>> diff --git a/gdb/config/i386/i386gnu.mh b/gdb/config/i386/i386gnu-extra.mh
>>> similarity index 58%
>>> rename from gdb/config/i386/i386gnu.mh
>>> rename to gdb/config/i386/i386gnu-extra.mh
>>
>> Why the "extra" rename ?  If anything, I'd expect i386gnu.mh -> i386gnu.mn?
> 
> git showed this as a rename, but it's really a new file.  

That's kind of stretching it.  :-)

> i386gnu.mh is
> gone, like every other previous *.mh file.  Instead of using the old
> name, I decided to add the "-extra" suffix to make it explicit that the
> file contains only extra definitions, and is not the only thing taken
> into account for this native target.

I find the "extra" redundant -- the way I see it, some targets have a 
makefile fragment file that needs to be glued into the Makefile,
others don't.  There's no "main fragment, and then maybe some other/extra ones".

> I initially disagree with your proposal to rename it to i386gnu.mn, so
> I'm keeping it this way.  

Why do you disagree?  ".mh" obviously meant "makefile + host",
but the fragment file is now described as being about the
native target.  Hence, "makefile + native => .mn".

I don't understand the rationale for renaming the file, saying it
is a native target fragment, but _still_ calling it ".mh".
So, I'd understand either not bothering to change the file name
at all, or if renaming it, then giving it a name that matches reality.

> Please let me know if you really thing the
> "-extra" suffix shouldn't be there, and I can remove it.

I really think the -extra suffix shouldn't be there.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves