From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10148 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2009 17:31:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 10136 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Mar 2009 17:31:10 -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 17:31:06 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ADE62BAB90; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:31:05 -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 gHpi6CPb7YLp; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:31:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2481B2BAB8F; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:31:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B143BF5C40; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:31:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:07:00 -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: <20090316173104.GH9294@adacore.com> References: <20090316162247.GE9576@adacore.com> <200903161642.27406.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090316171613.GF9294@adacore.com> <200903161724.31544.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200903161724.31544.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/msg00271.txt.bz2 > > 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. Excellent. So, unless I hear any objection, I'll add a comment at the beginning of the target_ops structure that details this new requirement. > > > 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. :-) Hey, you're not the only one who's allowed to break other's builds, you know? ;-) I'll take care of that asap. (I have to switch to something else for the rest of the afternoon) -- Joel