Re: [RFC/RFA] HPUX: Remove (non-useful?) definition of PREPARE_TO_PROCEED

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 02:15:58PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Re: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-05/msg00487.html
> 
> Based on Daniel's hunch, I made the following change, and it tested ok
> on our machine. I get the same set of failures for the threads tests:
> 
>     FAIL: gdb.threads/print-threads.exp: Running threads (fast) (timeout)
>     ERROR: Delete all breakpoints in delete_breakpoints (timeout)
>     FAIL: gdb.threads/print-threads.exp: break thread_function (2) (timeout)
>     FAIL: gdb.threads/print-threads.exp: set var slow = 1 (timeout)
>     FAIL: gdb.threads/print-threads.exp: Running threads (slow) (timeout)
>     ERROR: Delete all breakpoints in delete_breakpoints (timeout)
>     FAIL: gdb.threads/print-threads.exp: break thread_function (3) (timeout)
>     FAIL: gdb.threads/print-threads.exp: set var slow = 1 (2) (timeout)
>     FAIL: gdb.threads/print-threads.exp: break kill (timeout)
>     FAIL: gdb.threads/print-threads.exp: Running threads (slow with kill breakpoint) (timeout)
> 
> In all honesty, I know very little about this, so it was just a
> have-a-look kind of test. But based on the fact that this test confirms
> Daniel's initial suspicion, I would think that this patch is safe to
> apply. Since it will help doing some cleanup....

It won't actually show up in the testsuite.  I'm trying and trying to
remember which bug report I was working on when I developed the
prepare-to-proceed patch in the first place.  Also, removing the
definition means that you'll use default_prepare_to_proceed (which is
essentially useless) instead of the generic_prepare_to_proceed which
I'm proposing we use instead.

> 2003-05-26  J. Brobecker  <brobecker@gnat.com>
> 
>         * config/pa/nm-hppah.h (PREPARE_TO_PROCEED): Remove, no longer needed.
>         * hppa-tdep.c (hppa_prepare_to_proceed): Likewise.
> 
> Shall I commit this patch?
> 
> Thanks, (and Thanks to Daniel for the suggestion)

Would you do me the great favor of retesting with changing
PREPARE_TO_PROCEED to use generic_prepare_to_proceed instead of
hppa_prepare_to_proceed?  And if no one objects in a few days, commit
that.  Then the rest falls out, since you will have removed one of the
two remaining specializations of this method.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer