This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [drow@mvista.com: Re: RFA: LOC_COMPUTED support]
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 12:12:41PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Just a generic heads up on the structure of this code and these, er,
> batons (from the point of view of the architecture).
>
> This is implementing something like (I've not hacked C++ in > 10 years):
>
> // some base classes
> class A;
> class B;
>
> // a derived class (wonder if I got the order right).
> class B::class B1;
>
> // A `uses' B but is parameterized with the specific instance
> class A->method (class B B);
>
> in C.
>
> I honestly think that using baton's distract from what is a simple O-O
> construct and standard O-O terminology.
>
> The frame and architecture code both reflect this structure - pass in
> the object and then use methods supplied as part of the object.
>
> Once all this is settled, I think I'll look to re-factor (hmm, buzword)
> the code so that its structure better refects what is going on.
I don't think I agree with you on this, but if you want to change it by
all means post a patch for some concrete discussion :) This is another
point when I am willing to sacrifice a certain amount of clarity to not
carry around an extra set of method pointers; there are a _large_
number of these batons.
I'd rather discuss a transition to C++ than any particular instance of
this problem. Do you think it's feasible?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer