This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Introduce "gdb/configure.nat" (and delete "gdb/config/*/*.mh" files)
- From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GDB Patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Simon Marchi <simon dot marchi at polymtl dot ca>, John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd dot org>
- Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 10:04:10 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Introduce "gdb/configure.nat" (and delete "gdb/config/*/*.mh" files)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sergiodj at redhat dot com
- Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 3C2BC81235
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 3C2BC81235
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On Friday, May 05 2017, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/gdb/config/i386/i386gnu.mh b/gdb/config/i386/i386gnu-extra.mh
>>>> similarity index 58%
>>>> rename from gdb/config/i386/i386gnu.mh
>>>> rename to gdb/config/i386/i386gnu-extra.mh
>>> Why the "extra" rename ? If anything, I'd expect i386gnu.mh -> i386gnu.mn?
>> git showed this as a rename, but it's really a new file.
> That's kind of stretching it. :-)
Well, my intention from the beginning was to introduce this as a new
file. I'm not stretching it my intention :-).
>> i386gnu.mh is
>> gone, like every other previous *.mh file. Instead of using the old
>> name, I decided to add the "-extra" suffix to make it explicit that the
>> file contains only extra definitions, and is not the only thing taken
>> into account for this native target.
> I find the "extra" redundant -- the way I see it, some targets have a
> makefile fragment file that needs to be glued into the Makefile,
> others don't. There's no "main fragment, and then maybe some other/extra ones".
OK, I see your rationale now. In my previous understanding, the main
fragment was being generated from configure.nat, which is just a
copy-and-paste from the old *.mh files. But one could also argue that
there's not actual fragment there, since we just have variables being
>> I initially disagree with your proposal to rename it to i386gnu.mn, so
>> I'm keeping it this way.
> Why do you disagree? ".mh" obviously meant "makefile + host",
> but the fragment file is now described as being about the
> native target. Hence, "makefile + native => .mn".
Ahhh. You're not going to believe it, but until now I was not linking
the fact that ".mh" meant "makefile + host". I obviously agree that the
new extension should be .mn.
> I don't understand the rationale for renaming the file, saying it
> is a native target fragment, but _still_ calling it ".mh".
> So, I'd understand either not bothering to change the file name
> at all, or if renaming it, then giving it a name that matches reality.
>> Please let me know if you really thing the
>> "-extra" suffix shouldn't be there, and I can remove it.
> I really think the -extra suffix shouldn't be there.
Fair enough. Sorry about the confusion; I'll remove the -extra and
use .mn as the extension.
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible