This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: target_op(..) -> target_op(target, ...) obvious
- From: Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 09 Oct 2003 14:38:05 -0500
- Subject: Re: target_op(..) -> target_op(target, ...) obvious
- References: <3F855EFF.9080300@redhat.com>
Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
> As part of the on-going OO of GDB, the "target vector" is one of the
> next things up for treatment. I'd like to be sure that everyones ok
> with the mechanical transformatioin:
>
> target_OP (...) -> taget_OP (target, ...)
>
> being considered "fairly obvious" (post patch, give it a few days,
> commit patch). Pushing the target around is going to involve touching
> files across maintenance boundraries.
So, in this patch, the calls would all pass a pointer to the global
variable 'current_target', right? Or would it also include changes to
functions' interfaces to pass the target around explicitly?