From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Berlin To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Jim Blandy , Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Revised C++ ABI abstraction patches Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:01:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <200103151850.KAA30796@bosch.cygnus.com> <3AB13812.1DDF33AE@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00254.html Andrew Cagney writes: > Jim Blandy wrote: > > > > Michael Elizabeth Chastain writes: > > > Lightly proofread, no obvious errors found. > > > > Great. That means all the bugs still there are non-obvious, and will > > take a long time to find. Just make my day, will you. (Thanks.) > > > > > I would prefer constructor_prefix_p et al to be real functions rather > > > than macros. When I single-step code in gdb, it's a lot easier to follow > > > real functions than macros. > > > > I agree completely. But it is not the standard practice (see target.h > > and elsewhere) and others don't seem to mind. So I reined in my prima > > donna urges and left them as macros. > > Standard pratice is to use functions. Per the thread on the > xfer_memory() change - target.h will be fixed :-) Can I make them static inline functions, and keep them in the header, like the linux kernel does instead of macros? Or should i just move them to functions in cp-abi.c? --Dan