Re: [PATCH/RFC] Refactor gdb.reverse/insn-reverse.c

[Luis Machado <lgustavo at codesourcery dot com>]

On 01/26/2017 10:39 AM, Luis Machado wrote:
> On 01/25/2017 04:28 PM, Yao Qi wrote:
> > On 17-01-25 12:11:01, Luis Machado wrote:
> > > That is a reasonable assessment. insn-reverse.[c|exp] is redundant
> > > and IMO
> > > would benefit from renaming too.
> > >
> > > The support in "insn-support-<arch>.c means support for a set of
> > > instructions for this particular subsystem of gdb, therefore why i
> > > went with
> > > that name. Thinking about it further, instruction decoding support is
> > > the
> > > basis/foundation of reverse debugging, without which things would not
> > > work
> > > properly. But i may be overthinking. :-)
> >
> > Every test is about testing some sort of support.  Breakpoint test is
> > about breakpoint support, tracepoint test is about tracepoint support.
> > We don't have to explicitly mention "support" in the test case name,
> > IMO.
> >
> > It is easy to relate "insn-reverse-<arch>.c" to "insn-reverse.c".
> > If you think "reverse" is redundant, "insn.c" and "insn-<arch>.c" is
> > acceptable to me too.
>
> It is not terribly important. I've reverted to the original name
> (insn-reverse-<arch>.c), updated things to mention the new name and
> pushed this as 8b00c176168dc7b0d78d0dc1f7d42f915375dc4a.
>
> Patch attached.
>
> Thanks for reviewing,
> Luis

Forgot to effectively add the files. I'll fix this in a bit.