From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1129 invoked by alias); 6 Aug 2004 09:39:53 -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 1117 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2004 09:39:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aragorn.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.23) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Aug 2004 09:39:50 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-194-35.inter.net.il [80.230.194.35]) by aragorn.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id EBY49235; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 12:38:58 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:39:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Jim Blandy Message-Id: <9787-Fri06Aug2004123633+0300-eliz@gnu.org> CC: kettenis@jive.nl, drow@false.org, cagney@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Jim Blandy on 05 Aug 2004 09:28:21 -0500) Subject: Re: interface to partial support for DW_OP_piece in dwarf2expr.[ch] Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <4111145F.7000504@gnu.org> <41112BAE dot 9080304 at gnu dot org> <41115B4F dot 1080700 at gnu dot org> <20040804230242 dot GA10332 at nevyn dot them dot org> <200408050952.i759qXFK010181@juw15.nfra.nl> X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00098.txt.bz2 > From: Jim Blandy > Date: 05 Aug 2004 09:28:21 -0500 > > We know the cases supported by the arch-independent code will be a > superset of the cases supported by the arch-dependent reducer. The > latter can only support cases that can be reduced to our current > 'struct value', and the arch-independent implementation will extend > that. > > Again, I don't see any need for GDB to be broken until the larger > project is complete. GDB is broken for targets today that could use > this reduction method. I tend to agree with Jim. Here's another data point: the x86 support for hardware watchpoints. It was initially added to go32-nat.c for the DJGPP port, and only later generalized to cover any i386 target. (Of course, the initial code was committed without asking anyone, since the DJGPP target was my responsibility ;-) When the general x86 code was approved and committed, the DJGPP-specific code was deleted.