"struct target_ops" -> "struct gdbtarg" || "struct target"

[Andrew Cagney]

> Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> 
>> > Hello,
>> > The current "target_ops" structure appeared with GDB 4.  The
>> > original implementation containing only methods.  Since then the
>> > target_ops have evolved to include data vis:
>> >     struct section_table
>> >      *to_sections;
>> >     struct section_table
>> >      *to_sections_end;
>> > I think, the vector should be re-named to "struct target" or "struct
>> > gdbtarg" (consistent with gdbarch, and more name space proof) so
>> > that it correctly reflects its current implementation.
>> > I'd like to do this now, before the target methods start being
>> > explicitly parameterized with their target vector.
> 
>> 
>> I should note that an alternative is to have "struct gdbarch" as the
>> object and "struct target_ops" as the methods vis:
>> 
>> 	struct target
>> 	{
>> 	  .. data elements ...;
>> 	  const struct target_ops *ops;
>> 	};
> 
> 
> You mean 'struct target' not 'struct gdbarch', right?

Obviously.

 > The second
> alternative seems better to me, since it separates the static stuff
> from the dynamic stuff.  (Except, of course, that the 'static' stuff
> isn't actually static, because of update_current_target...)

While it seems better, it's significantly harder.  It will involve a 
period of rope jumping (which will likely trip up everyone) during which 
code wanting to modify things like "target_ops.to_section_end" will 
co-exist with code wanting to modify "target.to_section_end".  There are 
likely ways to ease the pain, but lets not ignore that there will be pain.

Given this, I think the most straight forward step is a straight:

	"struct target_ops" -> "struct gdbtarg"

transformation.  Moving the "ops" to a separate "static" vector being a 
second pass.

Andrew