Re: [rfa/threads] Eliminate lin-lwp.c

[Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>]

> > > > > > >>>You mean add a "lin-lwp.h" which exports everything so that 
> > > > > > >>>"linux-nat.c" can construct that vector, or conversly have "linux-nat.h" 
> > > > > > >>>export everything so that "lin-lwp.c" can construct the vector?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>Bleauh! Such a separation is artifical (although perhaphs the single 
> > > > > > >>>file should be called inf-linux.[hc]).
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Yes, that's what I meant.  I'd like to preserve the revision history
> > > > >when possible.
> >
> > > The revision history or the existing files and their contents?  The 
> > > former is always available in CVS.  The later, as I noted, is just an 
> > > artifical separation that will complicate the objective of cleaning up 
> > > this code.
>
>
> I find the ability to use cvs annotate and diff on a function extremely
> valuable, and you'll make that much more awkward if you move them
> around without a reason.  I was asking if you had a reason to create
> this inconvenience.

Yes, I want to avoid any artifical organization that will complicate the 
objective of cleaning up this code.

What we need to preserve is the accumulated knowledge of bugs and 
mis-implemented features - we do that by extending our test infrastructure.

> > > I do see merit in creating an a new inf-linux.c (to be consistent with 
> > > inf-ptrace, and inf-child), and I think I'll revise the patch to do that.
>
>
> Please don't.  It's the native support for Linux.  By GDB's existing
> conventions it ought to be linux-*.

linux-inf.c?  inf-linux.c is equally (if not more) consistent with the 
new inf-ptrace.c and inf-child.c.

Andrew