target_op(..) -> target_op(target, ...) obvious

[Jim Blandy]

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?