From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-15666-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 24714 invoked by alias); 17 May 2002 14:33:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 24695 invoked from network); 17 May 2002 14:33:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 May 2002 14:33:17 -0000
Received: from toenail.toronto.redhat.com (unknown [172.16.14.211])
	by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C7F17B8013; Fri, 17 May 2002 10:33:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from fche@localhost)
	by toenail.toronto.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g4HEXG626579;
	Fri, 17 May 2002 10:33:16 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: toenail.toronto.redhat.com: fche set sender to fche@redhat.com using -f
To: Nick Clifton <nickc@cambridge.redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Add support for target switches in simulator
References: <200205161624.RAA15198@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com>
	<m3n0uz40dg.fsf@north-pole.nickc.cambridge.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler)
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 07:33:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <m3n0uz40dg.fsf@north-pole.nickc.cambridge.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <o5n0uyg7yr.fsf@toenail.toronto.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00714.txt.bz2


nickc wrote:

> [...]
> > How does this proposed facility compare to that provided by
> > sim/common/sim-options*?
> 
> It is a similar kind of thing accept that it has two advantages:


>   * It works for simulators that do not use sim-common.[ch]  (such as
>     the ARM simualtor).

I don't understand.  There is no sim-common.[ch] file, and the new
module you are proposing is to go under sim/common.  It's as if you
want to add a new, alternative option handling module under
sim/common.  Can you describe what difficulties you encountered, when
trying to use the sim-options code as is (assuming you tried)?


>   * It isolates all of the target specific code in the target specific
>     subdirectories, and just has a very small intrusion into the
>     generic code.  (Unlike say the SIM_H8300 option).

The sim-options code can do this already, when used correctly.
Look at calls to sim_add_option_table in d30v, fr30, mips. m32r,
m68hc11, mn10300, ... :-)


- FChE