From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31599 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2003 16:24:10 -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 31587 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2003 16:24:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Oct 2003 16:24:10 -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 h9RGO9M25944 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:24:09 -0500 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 h9RGO9620913 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:24:09 -0500 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 h9RGO76q015703; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:24:08 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h9RGO2529517; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:24:02 -0700 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:24:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031027162402.ZM29516@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [rfc] New files "memory.[hc]"" (Oct 27, 10:39am) References: <3F99901B.6030005@redhat.com> <1031024210419.ZM3102@localhost.localdomain> <3F9D3C16.2070205@redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: [rfc] New files "memory.[hc]" Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00786.txt.bz2 On Oct 27, 10:39am, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > 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. > > But is it a good idea, as in will it make the code easier to read, find, > and understand? The old target-memory routines are all "hidden" (well i > think they are :-) in gdbcore.h and corefile.c I know it's kind of long, but how about "target-memory.[hc]" ? Kevin