This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 05/18] poison "private"
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Ondrej Oprala <ooprala at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:19:02 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/18] poison "private"
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1381339053-14519-1-git-send-email-ooprala at redhat dot com> <1381339053-14519-6-git-send-email-ooprala at redhat dot com> <525BB010 dot 3050105 at redhat dot com> <87ob6r3lvo dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com>
On 10/14/2013 04:36 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
>
> Pedro> BTW, I think it'd be much clearer if we renamed away all this
> Pedro> 'private' wording, like, say:
>
> Pedro> struct private_thread_info -> struct target_thread_info
>
> For the specific case of struct private_inferior, I think it would be
> better to change the code to use the existing registry API.
Yeah. A key per stratum perhaps? Not clear to me we'd
want each target to register its own key, which would result
in each thread_info holding a pointer for each target that
might be linked into gdb (that might want to attach info),
even though only one target per-stratum of those could be
owner of the data.
Though, that'd be a deeper change, compared to a simple
rename which should result in no functional difference.
--
Pedro Alves