From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12125 invoked by alias); 4 May 2010 15:43:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 12112 invoked by uid 22791); 4 May 2010 15:43:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 May 2010 15:43:04 +0000 Received: (qmail 5900 invoked from network); 4 May 2010 15:43:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO macbook-2.local) (stan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 4 May 2010 15:43:03 -0000 Message-ID: <4BE04081.3090706@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 15:43:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Adding support for VxWorks target References: <1272210447-13895-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20100504145744.GG2768@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20100504145744.GG2768@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00070.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker wrote: > Hello, > > >> The following series of patches adds support for cross debugging >> VxWorks targets (version 5.x, 6.x and limited support for VxWorks 653). >> It's a lot of code overall, and many patches, but it is almost >> completely contained in dedicated files, and we've split the changes >> in modules/patches, hoping to make it easier for anyone wanting to >> look at them. >> > > Just wondering what the general sentiment is towards these patches? > I just did a resync at AdaCore, and noticed a break due to the various > attribute changes. It's not big deal to fix those, but now I have to > do keep two sets of patches up to date... > I skimmed, and didn't see anything problematic. 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. Stan