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

Kris Warkentin
2004-12-03T17:01:45Z

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
>
>