From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7412 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2012 22:14:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 7403 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jan 2012 22:14:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:14:34 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q02MELRw016674 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 2 Jan 2012 17:14:21 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q02MEKaG018932; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 17:14:21 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q02MEInw027594; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 17:14:18 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Stan Shebs , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: FYI: minsyms documentation References: <4EF38DAD.3040106@earthlink.net> <20111223042053.GW23376@adacore.com> Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:14:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20111223042053.GW23376@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:20:53 +0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2012-01/txt/msg00069.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: Joel> So, perhaps the right approach lies in the middle. Only apply Joel> Tom's approach to parts where it should in fact be an API. I think one question worth asking is -- what parts of GDB would *not* be an API? I think the answer is, or should be, "none". When I look at GDB, I see a program that has reasonably decent modularization, though sometimes one must deduce the module boundaries and rules. Any given module has its share of API botches, often involving global variables; but usually with the worst stuff isolated the oldest and most stable code. The current GDB has a cleaner GDB inside, struggling to get out. I'd like us to spend a bit more effort on chipping away to find it. This is the spirit in which I wrote the minsym patch series. I don't see much point in attempting anything like this if the general opinion of the other maintainers is against it. I haven't seen enough replies to consider that there is a consensus, but I will hew to whatever it is. Tom