From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31069 invoked by alias); 22 Jul 2011 17:23:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 31060 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jul 2011 17:23:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:22:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6MHMdQq021426 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:22:39 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6MHMdj8018722; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:22:39 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6MHMbN6013452; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:22:38 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [0/6] breakpoints_ops for all kinds of breakpoints References: <201107221640.25105.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:33:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201107221640.25105.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:40:25 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2011-07/txt/msg00632.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> I did yet a bit more work on: Pedro> Pedro> This converts all breakpoint kinds to the breakpoint_ops Pedro> mechanism. Pedro> IMO, this is committable as is. WDYT? I read through them all. I think this is a great series. Please check it in. I'm not particularly fond of patch #4, but I understand why you did it, and I agree that statically initialized vtables are a pain -- I am often grepping for all instances and hoping I haven't missed one. (I wish we could require designated initializers for these so I could more easily search for field names...) I think we could make most of the vtable pointers (but not objects due to the initialization approach) const. I think that would help clarity a bit. I'm happy to do this after these patches go in. Tom