Re: [PATCH/RFC] Per-architecture DWARF CFI register state initialization hooks

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 11:04:26AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > Or do you want the architecture to allocate
> >and initialize the structure?  The latter would mean more work for the
> >architecture; if you want to override a single member of the structure
> >you'd have to fill in all the details.  I don't really like that.
> >
> >   From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
> >   Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 18:03:30 -0500
> >
> >   Hmm, I do.  You're adding a per-architecture data item which is a
> >   function pointer, and what amounts to the rest of what gdbarch.sh would
> >   generate (wrapper functions, default initialization.  I'd rather you
> >   just used gdbarch.sh.
> >
> >
> >What about Daniels objections that I'm hand-coding much what
> >gdbarch.sh already does?  I'm feeling that the modularity is worth it,
> >but how do you feel about that?
> 
> No. Yes.  Using gdbarch, and loosing that modularity, is far too high a 
> price to pay.

Since I am obviously not getting it, could someone explain to me what
the modularity advantage is?

All I see is a function pointer, with a default value or overridden by
the architecture initialization, used to parametrize a module's
behavior.  That is the same niche as every existing member of the
gdbarch vector.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer