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
next prev parent 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