Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Simplify target stack
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:21:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3F8F3610.2090407@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20031016230710.GB1542@nevyn.them.org>

> I believe that the objectives here are:
>> 
>> 1. being able to directly walk the target chain
>> Makes it possible to eliminate the INHERIT mess.  Lets targets 
>> efficiently/directly interact with target-beneath.
>> 
>> 2. allow multiple instances of a specific target
>> So that more than one target stack is possible.
>> 
>> 3. strict separation of target instance and target ops
>> See below.
>> 
>> In terms of priority, I rank them as above.
> 
> 
> But we already _have_ a separation of target instance and target ops. 
> It's struct target_stack_item.  It's your cleanup right there, waiting
> to happen.  Removing it is not a step forwards; you can just change to
> passing that item around instead of struct target_ops.  If you want a
> different name, rename it.  Not everywhere will need to be converted,
> obviously - only things which want the new data.

What you're casually dismissing as trivial: "Not everywhere will need to 
be converted" and "Eventually, with low urgency, the non-ops should be 
moved out of it" are exactly the things I also need *now*.

Given this, folding the two structures into-one provides me with the 
shortest path to this objective.

> Just because you can avoid doing it now doesn't mean that's OK.  You
> tell that to other developers at every opportunity.

And given a set of alternatives I'll take the one with the greatest bang 
for the buck.

Andrew



  reply	other threads:[~2003-10-17  0:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-10-15 22:37 Andrew Cagney
2003-10-16 13:16 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-10-16 15:27   ` Andrew Cagney
2003-10-16 23:07     ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-10-17  0:21       ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2003-10-23  3:58         ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-10-23  5:06           ` Andrew Cagney
2003-10-17 13:57 ` Andrew Cagney

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3F8F3610.2090407@gnu.org \
    --to=cagney@gnu.org \
    --cc=drow@mvista.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox