From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 66910 invoked by alias); 5 May 2017 09:41:58 -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 66895 invoked by uid 89); 5 May 2017 09:41:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-15.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_0,GIT_PATCH_1,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=reality X-HELO: mail-wm0-f46.google.com Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (HELO mail-wm0-f46.google.com) (74.125.82.46) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 May 2017 09:41:56 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id 142so939929wma.1 for ; Fri, 05 May 2017 02:41:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wAysaSpei9wdS+XOFCvpyIy+Oh6G8rFAbgYY9FehUrE=; b=EojLujM/XkGRJc+rSOl/4nozR8tYl2b5CHqY2WVqHhs+fWFq5dhAC4uHQaZHl0smBo wDaN2xN5BM27agx/lzXds/R8c9k8Yq9QpJQPA2qSckX3ASPLGVogkGVaFwZ0qS527In+ gAx11MFn+UjXBx/5KHnI5sBOhX4wkLcZ1WKVtdAAM+bzeQkNnB2S3D1VRRcn0bu69PC9 mfbq40MRQBPOkEeyUNEzd3NEhzNq/2cLvb798itfJVzRL8z1mc0XVR8/FEfgkALqbGQ2 gnVT2AYtfYzKfxuIExcAqf4wJhIspKJkacnpY7l++F9v4rlX/Kon/CgVZworNIbcHzG3 S2aA== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6+rLk1lvv7qZEbxdjQDd9KROZowOT0HP8Z4uuoLnzAQhjrP8r4 LjWIs8NFM6tho1LO X-Received: by 10.28.180.196 with SMTP id d187mr4494836wmf.137.1493977316246; Fri, 05 May 2017 02:41:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([37.189.166.198]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c37sm4214765wra.16.2017.05.05.02.41.55 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 May 2017 02:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Introduce "gdb/configure.nat" (and delete "gdb/config/*/*.mh" files) To: Sergio Durigan Junior References: <20170425202309.15771-1-sergiodj@redhat.com> <20170503034931.4515-1-sergiodj@redhat.com> <20170503034931.4515-2-sergiodj@redhat.com> <9d941b3b-1b16-3c17-6cae-11940ade7477@redhat.com> <87pofoymyk.fsf@redhat.com> Cc: GDB Patches , Simon Marchi , John Baldwin From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <91244564-2cfa-4306-8055-f26a109ecd72@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 09:41:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87pofoymyk.fsf@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-05/txt/msg00147.txt.bz2 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