From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: prgregset_t vs gdb_gregset_t on Linux: not the same!
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:58:00 -0000
Message-id: <20010611085807.A27951@lucon.org>
References: <20010608132730.A4056@nevyn.them.org> <20010608155907.A21698@nevyn.them.org> <20010608221452.B3344@lucon.org> <3B22492E.5020908@cygnus.com> <20010610002356.A1938@lucon.org> <3B24CC3B.8070407@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00074.html

On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 09:48:43AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> With regard to #include "tm-linux.h", I'd mimic *bsd.  That way it is 
> clear exactly what is going on.  Regardless of the semantics of "" vs <>.

I disagree. I prefer the gcc way. The gdb only gets away with "" is
we copy/link tm.h/xm.h/nm.h. If one day we ever want to have the gcc
style tm.h/xm.h/nm.h, where you have

# cat tm.h
#define TARGET_CPU_DEFAULT (MASK_GAS)
#ifdef IN_GCC
#include "gansidecl.h"
#endif
#ifdef IN_GCC
#include "elfos.h"
#endif
#ifdef IN_GCC
#include "mips/elfl.h"
#endif
#ifdef IN_GCC
#include "mips/linux.h"
#endif

"" won't work. I prefer <> over "".


H.J.