[rfc] block.{h,c}

[Andrew Cagney]

Can it eventually contain the few remaining scraps of block* code found 
in blockframe.c (hint, hint :-)?

> I'd like to move 'struct block' out of symtab.h into a new file
> block.h, and creating a new file block.c with block-specific
> functions.  Doing so would help lessen compilation dependencies, which
> is important for people like me with slow computers: right now
> symtab.h is included by around 140 files, while the resulting block.h
> would only be included by around 40 or so.  Basically, my code
> organization philosophy says that you should only define two different
> structures in the same include file if they are very closely linked
> (e.g. if code that refers one would almost always refer to the other);
> symtab.h doesn't pass that test.  For example, there's no particular
> reason why code using 'struct block' would be particluarly like to use
> 'struct minimal_symbol', or vice-versa.
> 
> I don't feel _too_ strongly about this; on the other hand, I can't see
> any reason not to make this change other than inertia.  (I guess that,
> the more include files there are, the more possibility there is that
> Makefile.in could get out of sync; that's not a good reason, though,
> and maybe the ARI could check for that?)

I think it is consistent with GDB's current overall direction - more 
modula with *.[hc] relating to specific objects or sets of objects.

Andrew