From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: "H . J . Lu" Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: prgregset_t vs gdb_gregset_t on Linux: not the same! Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:45:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B2503C1.8070003@cygnus.com> 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> <20010611085807.A27951@lucon.org> X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00079.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 You've lost me here. How can #include "config/tm-nbsd.h" not work? BTW, it wouldn't make sense for GDB to adopt GCC's tm/xm/nm arangement since that doesn't facilitate multi-arch. See the TODO file. enjoy, Andrew