Re: [commit] Let {TM,XM,NM}_FILE specify a path

["Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at gnu dot org>]

> Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 12:38:18 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> > Perhaps we should rename TM_FILE to something like TM_INCLUDE, then.
> 
> If you prefer, I can rename it to DEPRECATED_TM_INCLUDE when committing 
> my pending deprecation patch.

If we change the functionality of TM_FILE (so it can now name any
file), then it doesn't seem to be deprecated.  Thus,
DEPRECATED_TM_INCLUDE seems an inappropriate name to me.

> > Btw, did we decide upon all these recent changes against *_FILE
> > thingies?
> 
> Long long ago we decided that GDB would be strictly multi-arch, and 
> hence that all tm-*.h files (and TM_FILE hackery) should be deleted. 

Perhaps so, but that doesn't make those changes obvious, IMHO.  They
should be suggested as RFA's, as we do with any other change whose
idea was approved.  The fact that the idea was approved merely means
that there's no need for an RFC.  At least that is how I understand
the GDB development and patch-approval process.  If I misunderstand,
please point me to the text that says otherwise.

> If you prefer I can delete the tm-*.h files and TM_FILE configury outright.

If this was a joke, then I'm not amused.