From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18255 invoked by alias); 4 May 2010 18:30:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 18246 invoked by uid 22791); 4 May 2010 18:30:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 May 2010 18:30:27 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 881742BAAE4; Tue, 4 May 2010 14:30:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id X+NTcDg9p9hv; Tue, 4 May 2010 14:30:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57CEB2BAACF; Tue, 4 May 2010 14:30:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E8552F58F9; Tue, 4 May 2010 11:30:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 18:30:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: one big unit or several smaller units? (was: "Re: Adding support for VxWorks target") Message-ID: <20100504183015.GK2768@adacore.com> References: <1272210447-13895-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20100504145744.GG2768@adacore.com> <4BE04081.3090706@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BE04081.3090706@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-05/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 [changed the subject for this sub-thread] > I skimmed, and didn't see anything problematic. Thanks for looking at them! > Organizationwise, my personal preference would to be have fewer files > that are "everything wtx", which in turns reduces the amount of > headers / header files. It also forestalls some grumbles about long > filenames from DOS-land. :-) But don't feel compelled to glom them > together, if you prefer multiple files. It's interesting that you'd say that; I am the total opposite. I don't mind the extra headers - I think it makes the public/private API clearer. In fact, funny story: Jerome and I were in NY discussing some recent breakage in the debugger, and we both said that, while GDB's code has improved tremendously, some areas are still pretty horrible. After being asked for examples, I mentioned a few areas, but after a couple of minutes, Jerome said that one of the worst areas has got to be... ada-lang! And, oh yeah, it has to be one of the worst... ;-) And that brings me back to the original thought. I have always wanted to spend the time to break ada-lang into smaller modules. For instance, one module to deal with the GNAT encoding and provide a layer that insulates the rest of the code from it. Another module to handle expression evaluation. etc. Given that ada-lang is over 10,000 lines of code (actually 13,000 lines), I think it's pretty much the only way I can have a full understanding of that code... -- Joel