* 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).