Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Introduce "gdb/configure.nat" (and delete "gdb/config/*/*.mh" files)

[Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>]

On Friday, May 05 2017, Pedro Alves wrote:

>>>> diff --git a/gdb/config/i386/i386gnu.mh b/gdb/config/i386/i386gnu-extra.mh
>>>> similarity index 58%
>>>> rename from gdb/config/i386/i386gnu.mh
>>>> rename to gdb/config/i386/i386gnu-extra.mh
>>>
>>> Why the "extra" rename ?  If anything, I'd expect i386gnu.mh -> i386gnu.mn?
>> 
>> git showed this as a rename, but it's really a new file.  
>
> That's kind of stretching it.  :-)

Well, my intention from the beginning was to introduce this as a new
file.  I'm not stretching it my intention :-).

>> i386gnu.mh is
>> gone, like every other previous *.mh file.  Instead of using the old
>> name, I decided to add the "-extra" suffix to make it explicit that the
>> file contains only extra definitions, and is not the only thing taken
>> into account for this native target.
>
> I find the "extra" redundant -- the way I see it, some targets have a 
> makefile fragment file that needs to be glued into the Makefile,
> others don't.  There's no "main fragment, and then maybe some other/extra ones".

OK, I see your rationale now.  In my previous understanding, the main
fragment was being generated from configure.nat, which is just a
copy-and-paste from the old *.mh files.  But one could also argue that
there's not actual fragment there, since we just have variables being
AC_SUBST'ed.

>> I initially disagree with your proposal to rename it to i386gnu.mn, so
>> I'm keeping it this way.  
>
> Why do you disagree?  ".mh" obviously meant "makefile + host",
> but the fragment file is now described as being about the
> native target.  Hence, "makefile + native => .mn".

Ahhh.  You're not going to believe it, but until now I was not linking
the fact that ".mh" meant "makefile + host".  I obviously agree that the
new extension should be .mn.

> I don't understand the rationale for renaming the file, saying it
> is a native target fragment, but _still_ calling it ".mh".
> So, I'd understand either not bothering to change the file name
> at all, or if renaming it, then giving it a name that matches reality.
>
>> Please let me know if you really thing the
>> "-extra" suffix shouldn't be there, and I can remove it.
>
> I really think the -extra suffix shouldn't be there.

Fair enough.  Sorry about the confusion; I'll remove the -extra and
use .mn as the extension.

Thanks,

-- 
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF  31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/