This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: <cpu>-frame.c, frame/<cpu>.c, config/<cpu>/frame.c, ...
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 11:44:04 -0400
- Subject: Re: <cpu>-frame.c, frame/<cpu>.c, config/<cpu>/frame.c, ...
- References: <3EB48526.9060104@redhat.com>
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