This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 11/10] remote_target::m_remote_state, pointer -> object (Re: [PATCH 10/10] remote: one struct remote_state per struct remote_target)


On 2018-05-24 11:53, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/22/2018 06:30 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/22/2018 04:37 AM, Simon Marchi wrote:

Is there a reason not to make the remote_state object a simple field
of remote_target, does it have to be a pointer?  You would have to
shuffle things around a little bit more, but it seems to work fine.

Yeah, no reason other than struct remote_state not being complete yet
when the field is defined in struct remote_target.  I was thinking the
moving would be done as follow up, to avoid even more churn mixed in with changes, very much like patch #4 started with a pointer and then patch #5
moved to objects.
Like this?

Yep, looks good!


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]