RE: [ECOS] A couple of CDL questions...

[Jesper Skov <jskov at redhat dot com>]

On Wed, 2001-12-19 at 20:14, Patrick Doyle wrote:
> > We have both CTRLC and BREAK because of the way things used to work
> > before (like, in the 1.2.1 days). Ideally, I'd rewrite the few HALs that
> > still differentiate between these two configuration options, and flush
> > one of them from the tree. But there never seems to be time enough...
> >
> OK, now I am very confused.  What is the difference between
> CYGDBG_HAL_DEBUG_GDB_BREAK_SUPPORT and CYGDBG_HAL_DEBUG_GDB_CTRLC_SUPPORT?

"hard to explain", is what it is. I'm not even going to try - not
because I'm arrogant or anything, but it's just not worth the effort
(i.e., I'd have to go through some files to look at the code, and I
don't have the time).

> Hmmm... is that one of those backwards compatibility things that those "few
> HALS" still depend on?  I'll admit I have only been looking at the PowerPC
> HALs when I have been sorting through this.  Perhaps they are new enough
> that I wouldn't find a reason for the CDL to support this.

There's probably no (public) PPC targets that really care much one way
or the other. The ones that do are (some) MN10300 and MIPS targets,
IIRC. Part of the issue is backwards compatibility with CygMon.

> Regardless, if my understanding of the difference betweeen CTRLC_SUPPORT and
> BREAK_SUPPORT is correct, it seems to me that you wouldn't want to flush one
> of them from the tree, as they provide support for different (but related)
> features.

They only do so artificially, to keep existing CDL happy. If I had some
days to spend on this, I could get rid of one of them without loss of
functionality. But it's rather low priority.

Jesper