From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19159 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2002 22:32:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19152 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2002 22:32:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2002 22:32:19 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2EFA3D22; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:32:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D2CB5F0.7040300@ges.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:39:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020708 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc[ Opaque bcache References: <3D2CB213.4050607@ges.redhat.com> <20020710222254.GA25885@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00211.txt.bz2 > On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 06:15:47PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> This makes the bcache object opaque. Testing so far hasn't shown >> problems. I'll look to commit it in a few days. >> >> comments? Hmm, did I remember to update the makefile .... > > > Nope to updating the Makefile, and nope to comments: :-) >> +/* The type used to hold a single bcache string. The user data is >> + stored in d.data. Since it can be any type, it needs to have the >> + same alignment as the most strict alignment of any type on the host >> + machine. I don't know of any really correct way to do this in >> + stock ANSI C, so just do it the same way obstack.h does. >> + >> + It would be nicer to have this stuff hidden away in bcache.c, but >> + struct objstack contains a struct bcache directly --- not a pointer >> + to one --- and then the memory-mapped stuff makes this a real pain. >> + We don't strictly need to expose struct bstring, but it's better to >> + have it all in one place. */ > > > That's not accurate any more. Other than that, this looks great; and > it removes a lot of &'s we used to need when accessing a bcache, which > I quite like. Hmm, yes, I should clean up the comments I simply cut/paste. Andrew