From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20727 invoked by alias); 13 Mar 2012 16:06:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 20709 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Mar 2012 16:06:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pz0-f54.google.com (HELO mail-pz0-f54.google.com) (209.85.210.54) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:06:13 +0000 Received: by dald2 with SMTP id d2so1217693dal.13 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.74.74 with SMTP id r10mr6974004pbv.83.1331654773001; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([201.82.152.100]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h10sm909213pbe.12.2012.03.13.09.06.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:06:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Mark Kettenis Cc: tromey@redhat.com, sergiodj@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Implement new features needed for handling SystemTap probes References: <201203101655.q2AGte2M019374@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <87wr6pq4s3.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <201203130858.q2D8w5fe030670@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> X-URL: http://sergiodj.net/blog Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:06:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201203130858.q2D8w5fe030670@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (Mark Kettenis's message of "Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:58:05 +0100 (CET)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00442.txt.bz2 On Tuesday, March 13 2012, Mark Kettenis wrote: >> From: Tom Tromey >> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:21:00 -0600 >> >> >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Kettenis writes: >> >> Mark> As far as I can tell SystemTap is Linux-specific. So I'd think its >> Mark> support should go completely in Linux-specific -tdep.c files. >> >> sdt.h is really more like an ELF feature. > > All evidence I have points towards the functions in i386-tdep.c being > SystemTap-specific; that's probably why they have "stap" in their name > ;). They're only used from i386-linux-tdep.c, so it makes much more > sense to put them there. If somebody ever ports (or reimplements) > SystemTap for another OS, we can always move them. The same thing > holds for arm-tdep.c vs. arm-linux-tdep.c of course. I actually chose to put those functions on i386-tdep.c because they are used by both {i386,amd64}-linux-tdep.c, and so I thought it would be a good way to export them. However, I can put them in i386-linux-tdep.c and export via a new i386-linux-tdep.h, if that's OK. -- Sergio