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: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:55:14 -0400
- Subject: Re: target_op(..) -> target_op(target, ...) obvious
- References: <3F855EFF.9080300@redhat.com>
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.
[Not my day.]
The rationale is the same as for the architecture vector along with the
push to eliminate global thread/frame state. It is to make it possible
to have multiple instances of a specific target. For instance,two
ptrace inferior's, or two active remotes.
Andrew