From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFA] process/thread/lwp identifier mega-patch
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:51:00 -0000
Message-id: <3A8E357A.EB6EDC79@cygnus.com>
References: <1001003083922.ZM18831@ocotillo.lan> <3A196C0E.B28DA29@cygnus.com> <1001120185800.ZM17272@ocotillo.lan> <3A1E4BE8.866BCBED@cygnus.com> <3A2748DF.206B4418@eazel.com> <1001204163129.ZM1315@ocotillo.lan> <3A8D3823.8CA8D470@cygnus.com> <1010216190651.ZM12055@ocotillo.lan> <3A8DA64D.958223C8@cygnus.com> <1010216230251.ZM12641@ocotillo.lan>
X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00325.html

> Later on, when we're ready to move to using a pointer to a struct,
> we'll be able to use something along the following lines:
> 
>     struct ptid;                /* Now struct ptid is opaque */
>     typedef struct ptid *ptid;
> 
> The nice thing about this is that very little other code would need
> to change.  (Just the accessors and constructors.)
> 
> But I seem to recall that you had a problem with typedef...

Try declaring something like:

    xyz.h:
	struct xyz;
	exter void xyz_foo (struct xyz *self, ...);

    abc.h:
	struct xyz;
	struct abc;
	extern abc_on_xyz (struct abc *self, struct xyz *on);

using typedefs.  It ends up creating include spaghetti :-(

	enjoy,
		Andrew