From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Kettenis To: jimb@redhat.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: use constructor to build 'struct regset' objects Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 21:48:00 -0000 Message-id: <200405172148.i4HLm0bc014264@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> References: X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00515.html From: Jim Blandy Date: 17 May 2004 16:28:29 -0500 Jim Blandy writes: > 2004-05-17 Jim Blandy > > Use a constructor function to create regset structures. > * regset.h (supply_regset_ftype): New typedef. > (struct regset): Use supply_regset_ftype. > (readonly_regset_xmalloc): New declaration. > * regset.c: New file. > * am64-tdep.c (amd64_regset_from_core_section): Use > readonly_regset_xmalloc to construct regset structures. > * amd64obsd-tdep.c (amd64obsd_regset_from_core_section): Same. > * i386-tdep.c (i386_regset_from_core_section): Same. > * i386nbsd-tdep.c (i386nbsd_aout_regset_from_core_section): Same. > * i386obsd-tdep.c (i386obsd_aout_regset_from_core_section): Same. > * sparc64fbsd-tdep.c (sparc64fbsd_init_abi): Same. > * sparc64nbsd-tdep.c (sparc64nbsd_init_abi): Same. > * sparc64obsd-tdep.c (sparc64obsd_init_abi): Same. > * sparcnbsd-tdep.c (sparc32nbsd_init_abi): Same. > * Makefile.in (COMMON_OBS): Add regset.o. > (regset.o): New rule. So, that's the story. What do people think? Ah, you guessed my grand plan (that I never fully implemented). It would also be used for the gcore support. So, yes, by all means go for it! Is 'readonly_regset_xmalloc' a good name, or would something like 'supplyonly_regset_malloc' be better? I mean, both 'supply' and 'fill' functions read one thing and write another; if you don't already know the plot, it's not clear which direction a 'readonly' regset would go. I was wondering what readonly_ was supposed to mean in your first patch. Why not avoid inventing a wierd name at all. Just call the function `regset_xmalloc', and add a third argument right from the start. Just pass NULL as the third argument for now. Mark