From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20391 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2002 23:03:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20379 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2002 23:03:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Mar 2002 23:03:40 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16pH1Z-0002QP-00; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 18:03:41 -0500 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 15:03:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Where to put gdb/gdbserver-shared code? Message-ID: <20020324180341.A9062@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20020324163436.A6026@nevyn.them.org> <3C9E5936.9040900@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C9E5936.9040900@cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00221.txt.bz2 On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 05:54:46PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >There was some discussion a month or so about sharing signals.c between gdb > >and gdbserver. > > Month or so [ago]? > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2002-03/msg00058.html Two and a half weeks is sorta like a month! :) > >This comes up fairly often; we never quite decided how to treat it. Kevin > >seemed to be of the school that says there should be no code sharing, and > >Andrew leant the other way (as I remember - apologies for > >misrepresentation!). I dislike it in general, and having just eliminated > >every last bit of it I'm reluctant to introduce more, but signals.c is a > >good candidate if ever there was one. > > > >Ignoring that for the moment though, if we are going to share it, where > >should we keep it? We could keep it in a directory clearly describing its > >role ("native" or "utils") or clearly describing its status as shared > >("common"). I don't want to leave it where it is if it's going to be > >shared. > > > >Since I don't see the transition to lots and lots of common, shareable code > >with well-defined boundaries in our near future, I lean towards "common". > >Longer term, I'd prefer something like "native/utils/" and a well-described > >allowable interface for code in that directory; I don't know how practical > >that is yet. > > > >Thoughts? Preferences? > > If it is only going to contains the signals stuff, gdb/signals/? > > As I mentioned before, I'm left wondering what "common" is in common > with :-) GDB? sim? ... Very true. gdb/signals/ seems like overkill, because I can't think of anything else to go there - well, maybe I can, actually - but at least it's exact. Let's see how this looks. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer