This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Refactor common/target-common into meaningful bits
- From: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: <lgustavo at codesourcery dot com>, Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, "'gdb-patches at sourceware dot org'" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 20:34:43 +0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Refactor common/target-common into meaningful bits
- References: <51FA9649 dot 5060008 at codesourcery dot com> <87vc3pfghs dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <51FAA061 dot 4050005 at codesourcery dot com> <51FB7BFB dot 90100 at redhat dot com>
On 08/02/2013 05:29 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
"target" is an overloaded word in GDB-speak. My idea for this new
directory, would be for it to hold the native target backend bits.
But "target" could also suggest that corelow.c, file.c, remote.c, etc.
should be put in this directory, while I don't think they should.
If we don't move corelow.c and remote.c to "target" directory, that is
not confusing. People will get to know the meaning of the directory
when they list the files in this directory. For example, there is a
directory "Target" in LLDB source tree lldb/source/Target, and I get to
know what does "Target" mean in LLDB when I list the files in it.
Sounds like a better name for this native target backend directory
should be invented. GDB uses *-nat.c naming for most of
these files, while GDBserver uses *-low.c.
( "low" itself in GDBserver is also ambiguous -- e.g., linux-low.h
introduces the "struct linux_target_ops", and we call_that_ the
"low target" at places (seems its my own fault for introducing
that ambiguity...) ... )
So to me that suggests "nat", "native" or "low", in my order
I feel "target" is better than them, so I prefer "target".