From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26200 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2009 17:24:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 25642 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Mar 2009 17:24:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:24:34 +0000 Received: (qmail 3575 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2009 17:24:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 16 Mar 2009 17:24:32 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [RFC] How to get target_ops from to_kill method? Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:24:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tristan Gingold References: <20090316162247.GE9576@adacore.com> <200903161642.27406.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090316171613.GF9294@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20090316171613.GF9294@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200903161724.31544.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00269.txt.bz2 On Monday 16 March 2009 17:16:13, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > 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 can't see it a bad thing, so I'm on for it. > > 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? If you're willing to, it sounds very good to me. :-) -- Pedro Alves