From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0F8E3858D1E for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 15:11:23 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org C0F8E3858D1E Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [217.28.27.60]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 570BE1E0D3; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 11:11:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 11:11:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cleanup: Add missing feature/ XML files to Makefile Content-Language: en-US To: Luis Machado , Keith Seitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20220912224733.2962282-1-keiths@redhat.com> <383112d6-4d64-38e5-9e77-3f46b845e494@simark.ca> <77ffceca-e0c9-ed22-162f-cbf2f904aefa@redhat.com> From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 15:11:25 -0000 > I think it should be OK to remove these files (Linux doesn't support m-profiles, so it is unlikely this will get > used in the near future). We should add documentation about the feature, its registers and its purpose somewhere, > either in the code or in the manual. I can do that. This would be the right page, I suppose: https://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb/ARM-Features.html#ARM-Features > Otherwise the changes look OK to me. Watch out for the dynamically-generated descriptions (like aarch64-sve.c). I plan > to submit a patch to remove aarch64-tls.xml and make aarch64-tls.c generate the feature dynamically. > > Is there something we should be aware of when adding such files that don't have corresponding .xml ones? I don't think so. I wish that the generated and non-generated ones were separated (perhaps put the generated ones in a "generated" directory), so it's easier to remove them, to force-regenerate them. And maybe "make clean" in features/ could remove them too. But that's not a prerequisite for what you want to do. Simno