From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8342 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2009 17:16:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 8331 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Mar 2009 17:16:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:16:15 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C321B2BAB8B; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:16:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 5Gd8PMfBymva; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:16:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A31EC2BAB78; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:16:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 19F3EF5C40; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:24:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tristan Gingold Subject: Re: [RFC] How to get target_ops from to_kill method? Message-ID: <20090316171613.GF9294@adacore.com> References: <20090316162247.GE9576@adacore.com> <200903161642.27406.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200903161642.27406.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-03/txt/msg00268.txt.bz2 > Thank you very much for handling these breakages. No problem, I know how easily they can happen. [about having a target_ops argument for all methods] > Mostly, because it's a bunch of work that affects most native > targets. I tried hard to avoid missing any conversion in > the last set of changes, but, it ended up I broke a lot > of stuff... But, yeah, there's a lot of inconsistency > here. Yeah, fixing them all would be a lot of work, indeed. How about we decide that, from now on, all new methods should have a target_ops parameter as their first argument? Do you think that it would be a good thing? We can fix the others as needed... > I much prefer this version over the other. It's incremental, and > doesn't add any hack or reference to the current_target global. Me too. I haven't checked it in, yet, because it would become unecessary if we added the target_ops parameter to the to_kill method, which I can take care of.... What do you think? -- Joel