Re: FYI: minsyms documentation

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes:

Joel> So, perhaps the right approach lies in the middle. Only apply
Joel> Tom's approach to parts where it should in fact be an API.

I think one question worth asking is -- what parts of GDB would *not* be
an API?

I think the answer is, or should be, "none".

When I look at GDB, I see a program that has reasonably decent
modularization, though sometimes one must deduce the module boundaries
and rules.  Any given module has its share of API botches, often
involving global variables; but usually with the worst stuff isolated
the oldest and most stable code.

The current GDB has a cleaner GDB inside, struggling to get out.  I'd
like us to spend a bit more effort on chipping away to find it.

This is the spirit in which I wrote the minsym patch series.

I don't see much point in attempting anything like this if the general
opinion of the other maintainers is against it.  I haven't seen enough
replies to consider that there is a consensus, but I will hew to
whatever it is.

Tom