From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6122 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2002 23:21:03 -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 6100 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2002 23:21:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 2002 23:21:01 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD6A83C63; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 19:21:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D49C25D.3060704@ges.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 16:21:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020708 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: why cgen/cpu and not cgen in gdb_5_2_1-2002-07-23-release References: <200207241732.KAA00372@casey.transmeta.com> <3D3EF6CB.5080300@ges.redhat.com> <15680.49872.654846.745688@casey.transmeta.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00005.txt.bz2 > Andrew Cagney writes: > > > I just checked out gdb_5_2_1-2002-07-23-release from the cvs tree. > > > > > > Question: Why are the cgen cpu files there but not cgen? > > > > Same reason GDB doesn't include autoconf, automake, gettext, bison, and > > many other tools used to create generated files. Not needed. > > I recognize this. > But cgen isn't autoconf. gdb/configure.in isn't shipped with autoconf. True, gdb/configure is shipped with gdb/configure.in. If you want to generate a new gdb/configure then just the correct autoconf is needed. > I'm wondering if more changes are required or different rules are at play. > That's all. > > Methinks apps shipping the .cpu files in src/cgen/cpu without cgen is fragile. > How fragile I dunno, but it is suspect. Ergo my question. > [N.B. I'm not suggesting not shipping .cpu files. > Nor am I suggesting shipping the cgen *.scm files. > I'm just questioning the current situation. > As an example, one could move the .cpu files to a different dir.] Moving the files to a different directory seems to make sense. > If I upgrade to autoconf 2.15, or some such, I don't expect any fundamental > change to gdb. If I grab a copy of cgen off the net, it'll come with > the .cpu files. All of a sudden my gdb 5.2 is now supporting the > foo and bar insns of the baz cpu (assuming one configures the tree with > --enable-cgen-maint or some such). > I suppose we could have two different cgen releases, > one with .cpu files (*1), one without. [Or, for completeness' sake, cgen > could be instructed to use the .cpu files that came with the app, rather > than the ones that came with it, but that's clearly rather fragile.] > > (*1): There's also .opc files. I'm using ".cpu files" as a catch-all. > [One can certainly argue .opc files should live in opcodes, but that's > another discussion.] > > Also, maybe now's the time to add version numbers to .cpu files. > That is also another discussion. Yes. Andrew