From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25497 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2014 16:10:22 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 25487 invoked by uid 89); 18 Jun 2014 16:10:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:10:20 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5IGAJgN009963 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:10:19 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5IGAHxs030257; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:10:17 -0400 Message-ID: <53A1B9E8.5010504@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:10:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis , gbenson@redhat.com CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4 v2] Refactor shared code in i386-{nat,low}.[ch] References: <1403104976-2492-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <201406181606.s5IG6Mud000672@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <201406181606.s5IG6Mud000672@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00679.txt.bz2 On 06/18/2014 05:06 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote: > What is the whole point about this excercise? Reduce duplication and thus reduce maintenance burden. The same code is implemented twice, both in GDB and in GDBserver. We've had to patch both sides of the fence several times in the past years. If we had already had this, it would have saved effort. Can't rewrite history now, but we can avoid similar duplicate effort in the future. This specific bit is mentioned explicitly in: https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/Common#Arch-specific_bits_of_the_target_backends -- Pedro Alves