This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] gdb: Move DJGPP/go32 bits to their own tdep file
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:07:02 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: Move DJGPP/go32 bits to their own tdep file
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1492003875-25394-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <83bms1ka9s.fsf@gnu.org>
On 04/12/2017 02:47 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
>> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:31:15 +0100
>>
>> I posit that this makes them easier to find.
>>
>> The other day while working on the wchar_t patch, I had a bit of
>> trouble finding the DJGPP/go32 tdep bits. My initial reaction was
>> looking for a go32-specific tdep file, but there's none.
>
> Thanks, but why single out go32?
Because incremental progress.
> The comment in i386-tdep.c says:
>
> /* There are a few i386 architecture variants that differ only
> slightly from the generic i386 target. For now, we don't give them
> their own source file, but include them here. As a consequence,
> they'll always be included. */
>
> If we are going to have a separate tdep file for such architectures,
> let's do it for SVR4 as well.
That can be done, but I don't see why it has to be in the same patch?
> P.S. How come functions and other symbols are looked for via file
> names, and not via TAGS?
>
I don't know.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves