From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20901 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2012 12:32:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 20893 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2012 12:32:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:31:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0GCVmMS007050 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:31:48 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0GCVkW7007787; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:31:47 -0500 Message-ID: <4F1418B2.5070308@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:32:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergio Durigan Junior CC: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [RFC] Make static tracepoint with markers more OO References: <4F1010F5.4020104@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00540.txt.bz2 On 01/13/2012 05:09 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: >> > It's unfortunate to be calling the breakpoint's virtual methods >> > before the object itself is created, which will require some redesign >> > and refactoring if we ever switch to C++ (and is dangerous, as you may >> > end up touching parts of the object which are not constructed yet by >> > mistake), but, this is no worse than what we have now, so I'm fine with it. > Yes, I understand what you're saying. I couldn't figure out a better > way of handling this (except creating a "pre_breakpoint_ops"?). Yeah, something like a factory object, along with trying to push out of init_breakpoint_sal, etc. breakpoint-type specific bits, up into the callers, so to get rid of layer inversion. Anyway, don't worry about it now. Your patch is already a good cleanup. > Anyway, thanks for the review, I will submit a fixed version of the patch in > Tromey's reply. -- Pedro Alves