From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8295 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2002 20:48:29 -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 8231 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2002 20:48:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com) (66.187.233.200) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Jun 2002 20:48:27 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (vpn50-37.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.37]) by lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g5RKmQP06762 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:48:26 -0400 Received: by redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 201) id 785451B5E3; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:48:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:48:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: Gdb List Subject: Re: _initialize_inftarg Message-ID: <20020627204830.GC32318@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Gdb List References: <87d6ufdskk.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <3D1932BB.9000102@cygnus.com> <20020626032701.GA8229@redhat.com> <3D1A77DA.1060902@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D1A77DA.1060902@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00306.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 10:26:34PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: >>On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 11:19:23PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: >> >>>>There are 3 functions in gdb named _initialize_inftarg: >>>> >>>> grep -n '^_initialize_inftarg' *.c /dev/null >>>> inftarg.c:839:_initialize_inftarg (void) >>>> win32-nat.c:1818:_initialize_inftarg (void) >>>> wince.c:1968:_initialize_inftarg (void) >>>> >>>>I assume the win* ones are simply cut-and-paste error? >> >>> >>>Er, yes - they should correspond to their file names. I guess only one >>>was linked in at any time. >> >> >>That routine is pretty ancient. It was apparently introduced by Steve >>Chamberlain in 1995. >> >>Does it really hurt for it to be called by that name, though? >>_inftarg.c will never be linked for a windows gdb. I think it was meant >>to somewhat emulate the functionality of the similar function in >>inftarg.c. > >True, for the sake of consistency though, I think a file called FILE.c >should have _initialize_file() as the initialise function. Ok. I'll put this on my todo list. cgf