Re: [PATCH 11/10] remote_target::m_remote_state, pointer -> object (Re: [PATCH 10/10] remote: one struct remote_state per struct remote_target)

Simon Marchi
2018-05-25T03:31:16Z

On 2018-05-24 11:53, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/22/2018 06:30 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 05/22/2018 04:37 AM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>
>>> Is there a reason not to make the remote_state object a simple field
>>> of remote_target, does it have to be a pointer? You would have to
>>> shuffle things around a little bit more, but it seems to work fine.
>>
>> Yeah, no reason other than struct remote_state not being complete yet
>> when the field is defined in struct remote_target. I was thinking the
>> moving would be done as follow up, to avoid even more churn mixed in
>> with
>> changes, very much like patch #4 started with a pointer and then patch
>> #5
>> moved to objects.
> Like this?

Yep, looks good!