This is the mail archive of the 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] Refactor common/target-common into meaningful bits

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
of preference.

I feel "target" is better than them, so I prefer "target".

Yao (éå)

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