[rfc] [0/7] infrun cleanup

["Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>]

Pedro Alves wote:
> On Monday 17 November 2008 20:30:05, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > In fact other members of the ecs struct should probably be
> > local variables, maybe some of them passed explicitly to
> > subroutines.  I think this would help simplify understanding
> > the data-flow along handle_inferior_event and its subroutines ...
> 
> Agreed, probably, maybe.  I few months ago I started doing something like
> that and got rid of ecs completely, but then I looked at the result and
> noticed that cutting handle_inferior_event into smaller pieces first
> (or at the same time) would probably have had better immediate clarity
> gains, but I didn't try it.  That colides a bit (and possibly goes in the
> opposite direction) with just plain getting rid of ecs, as by doing the
> latter, you find yourself adjusting callers of callers to pass new flags
> around (as opposed to having everything related to an event handy in a
> single struct).  That's a > similar argument to the recent struct
> value_print_options or replacing > current_language with passing a
> struct around or similars.
> 
> Anyway, I don't have that much strong feelings in either direction, just
> telling the world my (possibly bogus) war story.  Patches do speak
> much louder than words.  :-)

OK, here's a couple of patches :-)  These will completely eliminate
struct execution_control_state, while at the same time making the
overall flow of control though handle_inferior_event clearer, IMO.

I'd appreciate any feedback on this approach (in particular if 
you've done things differently in your attempt) ...

Overall patch set tested on amd64-linux with no regressions.

Bye,
Ulrich

-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
  Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com