From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>
To: Doug Evans <dje@transmeta.com>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, cgen@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: why cgen/cpu and not cgen in gdb_5_2_1-2002-07-23-release
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 16:21:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D49C25D.3060704@ges.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15680.49872.654846.745688@casey.transmeta.com>
> Andrew Cagney writes:
> > > I just checked out gdb_5_2_1-2002-07-23-release from the cvs tree.
> > >
> > > Question: Why are the cgen cpu files there but not cgen?
> >
> > Same reason GDB doesn't include autoconf, automake, gettext, bison, and
> > many other tools used to create generated files. Not needed.
>
> I recognize this.
> But cgen isn't autoconf. gdb/configure.in isn't shipped with autoconf.
True, gdb/configure is shipped with gdb/configure.in. If you want to
generate a new gdb/configure then just the correct autoconf is needed.
> I'm wondering if more changes are required or different rules are at play.
> That's all.
>
> Methinks apps shipping the .cpu files in src/cgen/cpu without cgen is fragile.
> How fragile I dunno, but it is suspect. Ergo my question.
> [N.B. I'm not suggesting not shipping .cpu files.
> Nor am I suggesting shipping the cgen *.scm files.
> I'm just questioning the current situation.
> As an example, one could move the .cpu files to a different dir.]
Moving the files to a different directory seems to make sense.
> If I upgrade to autoconf 2.15, or some such, I don't expect any fundamental
> change to gdb. If I grab a copy of cgen off the net, it'll come with
> the .cpu files. All of a sudden my gdb 5.2 is now supporting the
> foo and bar insns of the baz cpu (assuming one configures the tree with
> --enable-cgen-maint or some such).
> I suppose we could have two different cgen releases,
> one with .cpu files (*1), one without. [Or, for completeness' sake, cgen
> could be instructed to use the .cpu files that came with the app, rather
> than the ones that came with it, but that's clearly rather fragile.]
>
> (*1): There's also .opc files. I'm using ".cpu files" as a catch-all.
> [One can certainly argue .opc files should live in opcodes, but that's
> another discussion.]
>
> Also, maybe now's the time to add version numbers to .cpu files.
> That is also another discussion.
Yes.
Andrew
prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-08-01 23:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200207241732.KAA00372@casey.transmeta.com>
[not found] ` <3D3EF6CB.5080300@ges.redhat.com>
2002-07-25 20:32 ` Doug Evans
2002-08-01 16:21 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3D49C25D.3060704@ges.redhat.com \
--to=ac131313@ges.redhat.com \
--cc=cgen@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=dje@transmeta.com \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).