From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 66758 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2018 15:40:02 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 66720 invoked by uid 89); 30 Nov 2018 15:40:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:843 X-HELO: gateway30.websitewelcome.com Received: from gateway30.websitewelcome.com (HELO gateway30.websitewelcome.com) (192.185.180.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:40:00 +0000 Received: from cm10.websitewelcome.com (cm10.websitewelcome.com [100.42.49.4]) by gateway30.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD839D288CC for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 09:39:58 -0600 (CST) Received: from box5379.bluehost.com ([162.241.216.53]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id SktagRUeRBcCXSktagW4qw; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 09:39:58 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tromey.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=/8HW50QWc6I7IVnu0hflnvti30iHhqH96ooo5tFrrng=; b=PR5kL7+3z+uD1tNUDl1T9YMscq ekMG9k50kYOaCTJF7GFHVn61Vs8JgHZTP6ZkudgM/wQyZFbAnB++8EyAUmdVVAsGC2WEIeFd9weFC lTIMW3FxSFRRsINORD5yDPTz+; Received: from 97-122-190-66.hlrn.qwest.net ([97.122.190.66]:59462 helo=murgatroyd) by box5379.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from ) id 1gSkta-001B7Q-Ef; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 09:39:58 -0600 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Introduce process_stratum_target References: <20181127202247.7646-1-palves@redhat.com> <20181127202247.7646-3-palves@redhat.com> <87bm67bv0h.fsf@tromey.com> <69876a1c-d4fa-deeb-b124-53fce26f4cc0@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:40:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <69876a1c-d4fa-deeb-b124-53fce26f4cc0@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:22:12 +0000") Message-ID: <87sgzi1smq.fsf@tromey.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2018-11/txt/msg00569.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: >> What if I added a protected constructor to target_ops that took the >> stratum as an argument? Would there be a problem with that? Pedro> I don't see a problem with that, but, given that a target's stratum is Pedro> a property of the type, and not of an instance of the type, wouldn't it Pedro> be better to get rid of to_stratum and replace it with a virtual method? Pedro> I.e., when we have 10 target remote instances active, there's no need Pedro> for each of the instances to have their own to_stratum copy. Pedro> Like this, on top of the series. Looks good to me, thanks. Of course now perhaps the constant should just be a template argument :) But that seemed like a pain and there's nothing wrong with this patch. Tom