From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14745 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2002 22:22:56 -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 14738 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2002 22:22:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2002 22:22:55 -0000 Received: from dsl254-114-096.nyc1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.254.114.96] helo=nevyn.them.org) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17SPrK-0004IT-00 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:22:55 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17SPrK-0006m6-00 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:22:54 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc[ Opaque bcache Message-ID: <20020710222254.GA25885@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3D2CB213.4050607@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D2CB213.4050607@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00210.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 06:15:47PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Hello, > > This makes the bcache object opaque. Testing so far hasn't shown > problems. I'll look to commit it in a few days. > > comments? Hmm, did I remember to update the makefile .... Nope to updating the Makefile, and nope to comments: > +/* The type used to hold a single bcache string. The user data is > + stored in d.data. Since it can be any type, it needs to have the > + same alignment as the most strict alignment of any type on the host > + machine. I don't know of any really correct way to do this in > + stock ANSI C, so just do it the same way obstack.h does. > + > + It would be nicer to have this stuff hidden away in bcache.c, but > + struct objstack contains a struct bcache directly --- not a pointer > + to one --- and then the memory-mapped stuff makes this a real pain. > + We don't strictly need to expose struct bstring, but it's better to > + have it all in one place. */ That's not accurate any more. Other than that, this looks great; and it removes a lot of &'s we used to need when accessing a bcache, which I quite like. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer