Re: RFA: use constructor to build 'struct regset' objects

Mark Kettenis
2004-05-17T21:48:00Z

From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
Date: 17 May 2004 16:28:29 -0500

Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com> writes:
> 2004-05-17 Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
>
> Use a constructor function to create regset structures.
> * regset.h (supply_regset_ftype): New typedef.
> (struct regset): Use supply_regset_ftype.
> (readonly_regset_xmalloc): New declaration.
> * regset.c: New file.
> * am64-tdep.c (amd64_regset_from_core_section): Use
> readonly_regset_xmalloc to construct regset structures.
> * amd64obsd-tdep.c (amd64obsd_regset_from_core_section): Same.
> * i386-tdep.c (i386_regset_from_core_section): Same.
> * i386nbsd-tdep.c (i386nbsd_aout_regset_from_core_section): Same.
> * i386obsd-tdep.c (i386obsd_aout_regset_from_core_section): Same.
> * sparc64fbsd-tdep.c (sparc64fbsd_init_abi): Same.
> * sparc64nbsd-tdep.c (sparc64nbsd_init_abi): Same.
> * sparc64obsd-tdep.c (sparc64obsd_init_abi): Same.
> * sparcnbsd-tdep.c (sparc32nbsd_init_abi): Same.
> * Makefile.in (COMMON_OBS): Add regset.o.
> (regset.o): New rule.

So, that's the story. What do people think?

Ah, you guessed my grand plan (that I never fully implemented). It
would also be used for the gcore support. So, yes, by all means go
for it!

Is 'readonly_regset_xmalloc' a good name, or would something like
'supplyonly_regset_malloc' be better? I mean, both 'supply' and
'fill' functions read one thing and write another; if you don't
already know the plot, it's not clear which direction a 'readonly'
regset would go.

I was wondering what readonly_ was supposed to mean in your first
patch. Why not avoid inventing a wierd name at all. Just call the
function `regset_xmalloc', and add a third argument right from the
start. Just pass NULL as the third argument for now.

Mark