* Re: why cgen/cpu and not cgen in gdb_5_2_1-2002-07-23-release
[not found] ` <3D3EF6CB.5080300@ges.redhat.com>
@ 2002-07-25 20:32 ` Doug Evans
2002-08-01 16:21 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Doug Evans @ 2002-07-25 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: gdb, cgen
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.
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.]
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: why cgen/cpu and not cgen in gdb_5_2_1-2002-07-23-release
2002-07-25 20:32 ` why cgen/cpu and not cgen in gdb_5_2_1-2002-07-23-release Doug Evans
@ 2002-08-01 16:21 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2002-08-01 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Doug Evans; +Cc: gdb, cgen
> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-08-01 23:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <200207241732.KAA00372@casey.transmeta.com>
[not found] ` <3D3EF6CB.5080300@ges.redhat.com>
2002-07-25 20:32 ` why cgen/cpu and not cgen in gdb_5_2_1-2002-07-23-release Doug Evans
2002-08-01 16:21 ` Andrew Cagney
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).