From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16382 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2006 23:58:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 16364 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Apr 2006 23:58:30 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 23:58:28 +0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k3GNwKxs000115; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:58:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k3GNwKuN031310; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:58:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id k3GNwJPx032646; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:58:19 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 23:58:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200604162358.k3GNwJPx032646@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: eliz@gnu.org CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: (message from Eli Zaretskii on Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:04:15 +0300) Subject: Re: Save the length of inserted breakpoints References: <20060302221711.GB18830@nevyn.them.org> <200603022301.k22N1qEt008208@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060411214613.GA702@nevyn.them.org> <200604120943.k3C9hYJ8012016@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060412125712.GA22145@nevyn.them.org> <200604121837.k3CIbMwu004466@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060412184717.GA29980@nevyn.them.org> <200604132213.k3DMDeBX026776@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00212.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:04:15 +0300 > From: Eli Zaretskii > > > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 00:13:40 +0200 (CEST) > > From: Mark Kettenis > > CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > > > FWIW, I agree with Daniel: it is better to pass a struct than its > > > individual members, especially if we expect different targets to use > > > different members of that struct. In other words, passing a struct > > > eases future maintenance pains. > > > > And it obfuscates the interface. > > I can't believe you really think that passing a struct instead of its > several members obfuscates the interface in any significant way; GDB's > code is replete with instances of passing a struct of which the caller > uses only a small part. > > I understand that you want to make a point, but let's not exaggerate > our arguments to such a ridiculous degree. If we don't try to make are interfaces as clean and simple as possible, GDB will get more difficult to maintain. Better spend a little more effort now than trying to clean up the mess later on. I'm willing to do the legwork to change the interface the way I proposed. Mark