From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26213 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2011 13:44:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 26095 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2011 13:44:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_WT,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (140.186.70.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:44:25 +0000 Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pv8pL-0007Jr-3X; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:44:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:44:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20110303121600.GX30306@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Thu, 3 Mar 2011 16:16:00 +0400) Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/18] document the new VxWorks port Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <1298569763-18784-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <1298569763-18784-19-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <838vx5rzf8.fsf@gnu.org> <20110303121600.GX30306@adacore.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00169.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 16:16:00 +0400 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > Why not "info wtx partitions", or some other variant to make sure this > > is VxWorks specific? "info partitions" is too general to reserve for > > a niche platform. > > The reason why this hasn't been put under the "wtx" prefix is because > I don't consider partitions to be a VxWorks-specific concept. I don't > know very much about the specifics, but I think that partitions are > defined by ARINC 653. But, beyond ARINC 653, I think that this concept > can be used in many areas, and we might find one day another platform > where the concept of partitions is used as well. > > Right now, the implementation we have in GDB is ad hoc, and WTX calls > are hard-coded inside the partition support code. However, my plan, > if I have the courage and enough rainy days, is to make that entirely > generic, so that the code can be shared with other platforms that might > come up which also provides a form of partition support. > > I hope that answers your concerns. Yes, thanks. The patch is fine to go in.