This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Add two new OS ABI variants

From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
To: kettenis at chello dot nl
Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, dj at delorie dot com
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 20:09:09 +0300
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add two new OS ABI variants
References: <200206091513.g59FDSc70617@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <2593-Sun09Jun2002193921+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <200206091651.g59GpjQ40007@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org>
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>

> Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 18:51:45 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>
> 
> But does it make
> sense to use GDB_OSABI_DJGPP when all function names still use go32
> somewhere in their name?  Do you have any plans for renaming those?

I don't mind renaming go32-nat.c into djgpp-nat.c, but renaming a
file in CVS has nasty side effects, and I'm not sure we have a reason
good enough to suffer those side effects.

But a new constant, if we name it DJGPP from day one, has no such
adverse consequences.

References:
- [PATCH] Add two new OS ABI variants
  - From: Mark Kettenis
- Re: [PATCH] Add two new OS ABI variants
  - From: Eli Zaretskii
- Re: [PATCH] Add two new OS ABI variants
  - From: Mark Kettenis

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]