Re: Register group proposal

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

Kevin Buettner wrote:

> E.g, regarding the pid/tid/lwp problem, the patch on the table uses
> struct ptid * as the opaque object.  As we've discussed in the past,
> this has the problem of leaving dangling references in various places
> if you attempt to wipe out the current set of ptids.

In the case of the pid/tid/lwp problem, it is not introducing a new
interface. Rather it is massaging existing code into slightly better
shape (but still not perfect).  It is fairly clear that that code will
continue to evolve so some compromise is necessary.  Somewhere in the
future, a true object ma finally appear and be adopted.

For new code providing new interfaces and functionality, however, I take
a different view. I don't see a compelling reason for it to not be
implemented in a style that is consistent with all the other recently
introduced code.  It may not be to personal taste but at least it is
consistent.

In the case of regcache, you'll notice that while I've strongly
encouraged a true regcache object I've not gone as far as dictating it -
I can't .  Nick's pushed back so I suspect it will remain an integer.
 
If however, someone were to take Nick's reggroup idea and implement
Keith's proposal (allow reggroups membership to be changed at runtime),
then I suspect the implementation would need to be moved out of the
architecture vector and made an object in its own right.  At that point
- I would be expecting an implementation that was consistent with ui-out
et.al.

enjoy,
	Andrew