This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: <cpu>-frame.c, frame/<cpu>.c, config/<cpu>/frame.c, ...


On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 11:12:38PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> This picks up an old old topic
> 
> Since MarkK is threatening to get the i386 using the new frame code, now 
> is probably the time to think about where all these frame modules should 
> live:
> 
> d10v-frame.[hc]:
> Fills the top-level directory up with more stuff.  That got objections 
> when it was last suggested.
> 
> frame/<cpu>.[hc]:
> Keeps all the frame code in one directory.  This makes it clearer that 
> the code is ment to be frame centric (and not the place to put non-frame 
> stuff).
> 
> config/<cpu>/frame.[hc]:
> Keeps the cpu stuff in a single directory.

Like I said last time, I'm in favor of config/<cpu>/.  Splitting
support files for a particular CPU across multiple functional area
directories would be annoying, I think.  The toplevel directory could
do with some pruning.  And I don't think it will be especially
confusing.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]