From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8792 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2009 15:46:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 8782 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Oct 2009 15:46:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:46:17 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9TFiK6J027924; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:44:20 -0400 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9TFiIA8011539 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:44:20 -0400 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9TFiHih007189; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:44:17 +0100 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n9TFiE5m007180; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:44:14 +0100 Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:46:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] design question re: watchpoint target methods Message-ID: <20091029154414.GA6824@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <20091029145817.GO24340@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091029145817.GO24340@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) 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: 2009-10/txt/msg00685.txt.bz2 On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:58:17 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote: > enum stopped_by_watchpoint (*to_thread_stopped_by_watchpoint) > (ptid_t ptid, CORE_ADDR *data_address_p); > > Actually, I think that all target_ops operations should take a struct > target_ops parameter, even if not needed, at least for consistency, but > also to facilitate transitions if this parameter ever becomes needed > later on. OK, I had some wrong assumptions, I see it fits more the targets abstractions, I agree with adding it there. Thanks, Jan