From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13922 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2003 04:29:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13893 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2003 04:29:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.home) (12.223.225.216) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2003 04:29:05 -0000 Received: by zenia.home (Postfix, from userid 5433) id 78FB320766; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 23:27:28 -0500 (EST) To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, uweigand@de.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] S/390 port modernization 1/4 References: <200312042145.WAA07842@faui1d.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> From: Jim Blandy Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 04:29:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200312042145.WAA07842@faui1d.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00192.txt.bz2 Ulrich Weigand writes: > Jim Blandy wrote: > > > Would it be possible to have s390-nat.c simply use the structures from > > s390-tdep.c? There's nothing wrong with having an s390-tdep.h file in > > the gdb directory; that's the usual arrangement for native systems. > > As these offsets are core kernel ABI that will never change, I hadn't > thought it necessary to avoid this duplication -- in particular as > one of my goals was to disentangle the various components as much as > possible ... > > But if you prefer a s390-tdep.h file, I can certainly do that. I see. It's my feeling that -nat.c files are always, in some sense, dependent on -tdep.c files anyway (although the reverse is not true). And it seems to me that using exactly the same table in both places does clarify the intent.