From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9294 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2004 17:01:45 -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 9178 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2004 17:01:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 Dec 2004 17:01:33 -0000 Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14605; Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:11:55 -0500 Received: from [10.12.2.12] (dhcpb12 [10.12.2.12]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA30987; Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:50:24 -0500 Message-ID: <41B0988D.3030005@qnx.com> Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:01:00 -0000 From: Kris Warkentin User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20040913) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Ping: [patch] general updates and improvements to QNX NTO support References: <419E5B3C.3020209@qnx.com> <41A794A8.9090008@qnx.com> <41B0905D.7070408@qnx.com> <200412031617.iB3GHFN3020509@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <200412031617.iB3GHFN3020509@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00065.txt.bz2 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 > > 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 > >