Re: Ping: [patch] general updates and improvements to QNX NTO support

[Kris Warkentin <kewarken@qnx.com>]

Hmm....I think the diff hard to read.  I haven't gotten rid of struct 
nto_target_ops in nto-tdep.h.  All I did is move the comments into the 
definition of the structure from outside with the defines.

I also changed the macro defines so that I can assign and test.  ie.

old:
define nto_regset_fill(regset, data) 
(*current_nto_target.nto_regset_fill) (regset, data)

new:
#define nto_regset_fill (current_nto_target.nto_regset_fill)

That way I can easily switch targets in code.

I am defining current_nto_target in nto-tdep.h as being extern but I 
don't declare it there.  Is having a global verboten?  I has assumed it 
was okay since we have many precedents like inferior_ptid and 
current_target and such.

cheers,

Kris

Mark Kettenis wrote:

>   Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 11:12:14 -0500
>   From: Kris Warkentin <kewarken@qnx.com>
>
>   Weekly ping.  It's really not that bad....I ran gdb_indent.sh on 
>   it....it's only affecting QNX specific stuff....I tested it on Windows, 
>   Linux and Neutrino...
>
>It is bad.  It defines variables in a header file.  That's
>unacceptable.  What's your motivation for getting rid of `struct
>nto_target_ops' in the first place?  Seems like a step in the wrong
>direction to me.
>
>Please fix this, then resubmit.  I promise to look at it in a timely
>fashion if you do.
>
>Mark
>  
>