From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17847 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2003 17:12:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17813 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2003 17:12:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Oct 2003 17:12:07 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9NHC5M01365 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:12:05 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9NHC5r04011 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:12:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-2.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.2]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9NHC1cY029949; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:12:02 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h9NHBtf14126; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:11:55 -0700 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:12:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031023171155.ZM14125@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [rfa:ppc64] Use target in convert_from_func_ptr_addr" (Oct 23, 12:26pm) References: <3F9730C3.1040308@redhat.com> <1031023160017.ZM13795@localhost.localdomain> <3F980124.6050409@redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: [rfa:ppc64] Use target in convert_from_func_ptr_addr Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00700.txt.bz2 On Oct 23, 12:26pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > On Oct 22, 9:37pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > > >> The attached rewrites the PPC64 GNU/Linux convert_from_func_ptr_addr > >> method so that it makes use of the explicit "struct target_ops" > >> parameter I recently added (previously it was indirectly using > >> current_target). > > > > > IMO, this version of the code is harder to read than the old version. > > > > Can you explain what using an explicit `struct target_ops'' parameter > > buys us? > > By using the explicit "struct target_ops", I've eliminated the > assumption that the _single_ _global_ current_target contains the > function descriptor. Yes. But what does this buy us? I.e, what will we be able to do after this patch that we couldn't do before? Kevin