From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4597 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2004 18:09:26 -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 4590 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2004 18:09:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Feb 2004 18:09:25 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AsQhm-0007vd-Um; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 13:09:22 -0500 Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Per-architecture DWARF CFI register state initialization hooks Message-ID: <20040215180922.GA30368@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200402072237.i17Mbqae011375@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <4025795F.9080308@gnu.org> <200402151530.i1FFUaht009031@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <402F988A.1080508@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <402F988A.1080508@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00380.txt.bz2 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 > > 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