From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28524 invoked by alias); 17 May 2012 11:23:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 28515 invoked by uid 22791); 17 May 2012 11:23:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 May 2012 11:23:11 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1SUynU-0004mU-Am from Maciej_Rozycki@mentor.com ; Thu, 17 May 2012 04:23:08 -0700 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 17 May 2012 04:22:52 -0700 Received: from [172.30.0.201] (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:23:06 +0100 Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 11:23:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Mark Kettenis CC: , , , , Subject: Re: [SH] regs command In-Reply-To: <201205171109.q4HB9Ljc005742@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: References: <87ehqkrzzw.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120516142633.GV10253@adacore.com> <87zk98qe8t.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120516165730.GY10253@adacore.com> <87pqa4qbzp.fsf@schwinge.name> <87r4ukox0y.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120516190539.GZ10253@adacore.com> <201205171109.q4HB9Ljc005742@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" 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: 2012-05/txt/msg00647.txt.bz2 On Thu, 17 May 2012, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > So here it is, this change moves *_tdep initialisers to the end while > > otherwise keeping the order the same (IOW within the two groups the order > > remains the same as before). I've checked it against autoconf's tool > > portability list and also verified it with Solaris sed to make sure > > there are no surprises. > > Sorry, but we've always considered it a mistake to rely on a specific > order of running the initialization functions. Implicit dependencies > between modules like that really are a bad idea. What's the technical reason and what do you propose as the alternative? Personally I see no problems with a hierarchical structure of initialisers as long as the hierarchy is well-defined so that people can rely on that. I can give you a name of a complex project that works very well with such an arrangement, and they actually have as many as eight levels. Maciej