From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5615 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2003 21:04:26 -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 5595 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2003 21:04:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Oct 2003 21:04:26 -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 h9OL4PM22807 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:04:25 -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 h9OL4P604320 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:04:25 -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 h9OL4O6q010612; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:04:25 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h9OL4Jx03103; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:04:19 -0700 Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 21:04:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031024210419.ZM3102@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "[rfc] New files "memory.[hc]"" (Oct 24, 4:48pm) References: <3F99901B.6030005@redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc] New files "memory.[hc]" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00754.txt.bz2 On Oct 24, 4:48pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > What do people think of putting the new (with target parameter) methods, > that wrap target_{read,write} in a new file "memory.[hc]"? I think they > are going to end up cluttering up "target.[hc]". Sounds okay to me. Do you have a naming scheme in mind for the new methods? Kevin