Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Simplify target stack
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 03:58:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20031023035845.GA4655@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3F8F3610.2090407@gnu.org>

On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 08:21:36PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >I believe that the objectives here are:
> >>
> >>1. being able to directly walk the target chain
> >>Makes it possible to eliminate the INHERIT mess.  Lets targets 
> >>efficiently/directly interact with target-beneath.
> >>
> >>2. allow multiple instances of a specific target
> >>So that more than one target stack is possible.
> >>
> >>3. strict separation of target instance and target ops
> >>See below.
> >>
> >>In terms of priority, I rank them as above.
> >
> >
> >But we already _have_ a separation of target instance and target ops. 
> >It's struct target_stack_item.  It's your cleanup right there, waiting
> >to happen.  Removing it is not a step forwards; you can just change to
> >passing that item around instead of struct target_ops.  If you want a
> >different name, rename it.  Not everywhere will need to be converted,
> >obviously - only things which want the new data.
> 
> What you're casually dismissing as trivial: "Not everywhere will need to 
> be converted" and "Eventually, with low urgency, the non-ops should be 
> moved out of it" are exactly the things I also need *now*.
> 
> Given this, folding the two structures into-one provides me with the 
> shortest path to this objective.
> 
> >Just because you can avoid doing it now doesn't mean that's OK.  You
> >tell that to other developers at every opportunity.
> 
> And given a set of alternatives I'll take the one with the greatest bang 
> for the buck.

Please don't pretend I'm the only one on this list who has asked for a
contributor to take the longer way to a goal, in light of later
cleanups.  This is standard practice for keeping the code maintainable,
and evolving towards improved organization.

I see that you've checked this patch in despite my objections.  Please
let me know when you're done with modifying the target vector for a few
days and I'll just separate instance and ops myself, including moving
the new to_beneath and to_data fields out of struct target_ops.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


  reply	other threads:[~2003-10-23  3:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-10-15 22:37 Andrew Cagney
2003-10-16 13:16 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-10-16 15:27   ` Andrew Cagney
2003-10-16 23:07     ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-10-17  0:21       ` Andrew Cagney
2003-10-23  3:58         ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2003-10-23  5:06           ` Andrew Cagney
2003-10-17 13:57 ` Andrew Cagney

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20031023035845.GA4655@nevyn.them.org \
    --to=drow@mvista.com \
    --cc=cagney@gnu.org \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox