From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-43652-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 25070 invoked by alias); 14 Apr 2006 08:04:19 -0000
Received: (qmail 25062 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Apr 2006 08:04:18 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 08:04:16 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-89-169.inter.net.il [80.230.89.169]) 	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) 	with ESMTP id DDF19188 (AUTH halo1); 	Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:04:07 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 08:04:00 -0000
Message-Id: <ufykg37nk.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <200604132213.k3DMDeBX026776@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (message 	from Mark Kettenis on Fri, 14 Apr 2006 00:13:40 +0200 (CEST))
Subject: Re: Save the length of inserted breakpoints
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <20060302221711.GB18830@nevyn.them.org> <200603022301.k22N1qEt008208@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060411214613.GA702@nevyn.them.org> <200604120943.k3C9hYJ8012016@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060412125712.GA22145@nevyn.them.org> <200604121837.k3CIbMwu004466@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060412184717.GA29980@nevyn.them.org> <uvetd3nd7.fsf@gnu.org> <200604132213.k3DMDeBX026776@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00181.txt.bz2

> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 00:13:40 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> > FWIW, I agree with Daniel: it is better to pass a struct than its
> > individual members, especially if we expect different targets to use
> > different members of that struct.  In other words, passing a struct
> > eases future maintenance pains.
> 
> And it obfuscates the interface.

I can't believe you really think that passing a struct instead of its
several members obfuscates the interface in any significant way; GDB's
code is replete with instances of passing a struct of which the caller
uses only a small part.

I understand that you want to make a point, but let's not exaggerate
our arguments to such a ridiculous degree.