From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Markus Deuling <deuling@de.ibm.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, uweigand@de.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [rfc] [17/17] Get rid of current_gdbarch in go32-nat.c
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:25:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <u640yuchm.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <471C3E2C.3010509@de.ibm.com> (message from Markus Deuling on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:07:40 +0200)
> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:07:40 +0200
> From: Markus Deuling <deuling@de.ibm.com>
> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, uweigand@de.ibm.com
>
> > Sorry for asking this so late, but could you please explain the
> > reason(s) why these changes are a good idea, i.e. what potential
> > problem(s) are they trying to solve? If I tell you that the go32
> > (a.k.a. DJGPP) native build of GDB supports only a single
> > architecture, would those reason(s) still hold?
> >
>
> sorry for the late respone. I've been on vacation.
> Please see here: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2007-10/msg00108.html
Thanks for the pointer. Unfortunately, it does not answer my question
above. Perhaps the earlier thread (to which it refers without stating
a URL) does, in which case I'd like to read that earlier thread.
> What I'll try to achieve is to get rid of the global variable current_gdbarch to have a real per-frame architecture.
Yes, but why? It looks like getting rid of current_gdbarch is needed
to support the situation where multiple architectures are supported in
the same session (or maybe even in the same executable?). That is why
I asked the second question above: the DJGPP native build of GDB
supports only a single architecture, and will ever support only that
single architecture. So the question is: is there any particular
reason to get rid of current_gdbarch in go32-nat.c?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-22 20:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-11 8:56 Markus Deuling
2007-10-12 10:56 ` Eli Zaretskii
2007-10-22 7:44 ` Markus Deuling
2007-10-22 20:25 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2007-10-23 10:31 ` Markus Deuling
2007-10-23 21:15 ` Eli Zaretskii
2007-10-23 21:55 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-10-24 4:08 ` Eli Zaretskii
2007-10-24 11:48 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-10-24 19:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
2007-10-24 13:39 ` Ulrich Weigand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=u640yuchm.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=deuling@de.ibm.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=uweigand@de.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox