Re: PING 3: [patch, testsuite] General ARM target triplet

[Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>]

On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 09:08 -0700, Yao Qi wrote:
> On 01/13/2011 04:47 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
> > On 01/06/2011 08:10 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
> >> On 12/13/2010 11:39 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> >>>>> OK, I combine them together in one single patch this time.
> >>> Thanks. If/when everyone's happy with the triplet bits
> >>> proper, this is okay.
> >>
> >> Ping. Are you happy with this triplet? :-)
> >>
> >> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-12/msg00187.html
> >>
> >
> > Ping.
> >
> 
> Ping again with a small fix pointed out by Matthew.  Richard, are you OK 
> with that?
> 
> -- 
> Yao Qi

+proc dwarf2_support {} {
+    if {![istarget *-*-linux*]
+       && ![istarget *-*-gnu*]
+       && ![istarget *-*-elf*]
+       && ![istarget *-*-openbsd*]
+       && ![istarget arm*-*-eabi*]
+       && ![istarget arm*-*-symbianelf*]
+       && ![istarget powerpc-*-eabi*]} {
+       return 0
+    }
+
+    return 1
+}

Why is this negated?  It would seem more sensible to me to have a list
of supported targets that returns 1 and then default to returning 0 for
everything else.  Why?  Because then if the list gets too long its
easier to add a second cluster in an independent if-clause.


The ARM bits are all fine.  The dwarf2 changes look generally sensible,
but should be reviewed by a full gdb maintainer, which I'm not.

R.