This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com 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]

Re: i386: Are we settled?

To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
Subject: Re: i386: Are we settled?
From: Jim Blandy <jimb at cygnus dot com>
Date: 10 Nov 1999 13:07:56 -0500
Cc: gdb at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
References: <199911090018.TAA12933@zwingli.cygnus.com><199911101536.KAA04550@mescaline.gnu.org>


> > If so, I encourage folks to start deleting stuff from their more
> > specialized tm-*.h files, and using the definitions in tm-i386.h.
> 
> I'm going through tm-go32.h now, but I have one question.  tm-i386.h
> has several definitions conditioned on symbols like HAVE_I387_REGS.
> What is the appropriate place to define (or undefine) these?  Is it
> tm-go32.h before it includes tm-i386.h or somewhere else?

Yes, it was the intention that the more specific .h files, like
tm-go32.h, which know more about the particular machine being
debugged, would define those.

References:
- i386: Are we settled?
  - From: Jim Blandy
- Re: i386: Are we settled?
  - From: Eli Zaretskii

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