From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3094 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2014 10:38:04 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 3078 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jul 2014 10:38:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:38:02 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6GAc0EA020582 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 16 Jul 2014 06:38:00 -0400 Received: from blade.nx (ovpn-116-88.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.88]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6GAbxH2022733; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 06:37:59 -0400 Received: by blade.nx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 88FB32640C7; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 11:37:58 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:01:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: Doug Evans Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] Add target/symbol.h, update users Message-ID: <20140716103758.GD22380@blade.nx> References: <1404902255-11101-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <1404902255-11101-13-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <87bnsxdrtj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87d2dd81of.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20140711125653.GD2695@blade.nx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00418.txt.bz2 Doug Evans wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Gary Benson wrote: > > Tom Tromey wrote: > > > Doug> As target/* scales up, is there a risk of the code > > > Doug> becoming harder to read if target_ is used as a general > > > Doug> prefix for things in target/*? Dunno. Just wondering. > > > > > > My long term goal is that gdb and gdbserver share the entire > > > target stack. I think these patches further this goal. I don't > > > find the result harder to read at all. > > > > Doug, are you ok for me to leave it as it is, or, do you have an > > alternative you would like me to implement instead? > > Hi. I'm not sure TBH. I think it might be ok as is, but IWBN to > see the full patch with comments. In this case, the implementations are in gdb/{,gdbserver/}target.c so maybe it would make sense to have the prototype in gdb/target/target.h--though this comes with the caveat that I don't have a good idea of what sharing the entire target stack will mean right now. It may be that Tom created the file anticipating other functions that will go there in future. Doug, Tom, I'd appreciate both your opinions on this. Wherever it goes (and whatever it's called) I think there'll always be a bit of jiggling around with a refactoring of this size and nature. I think we need to prioritize getting the right subset of code shared over getting the interface perfect or we risk premature optimization. Doug, I realize that this paragraph could be read as "I don't share your concerns" but please don't read it this way! I want a really nice interface between the shared code (ie common/target/nat) and the consumers (GDB and gdbserver). I'm anticipating various functions being moved and/or renamed as the exact subset of code to be shared becomes clearer. Thanks, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/