From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17350 invoked by alias); 3 May 2018 00:00:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 10889 invoked by uid 89); 3 May 2018 00:00:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 May 2018 00:00:02 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB93181A88D5; Thu, 3 May 2018 00:00:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785B32022C00; Thu, 3 May 2018 00:00:00 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Eliminate target_ops::to_xclose To: Tom Tromey References: <20180413175700.19109-1-palves@redhat.com> <87muxo65ap.fsf@tromey.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <1ecb106a-8951-64ca-27a2-acc654710295@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 03 May 2018 00:00:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87muxo65ap.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00031.txt.bz2 On 04/27/2018 04:24 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > > Pedro> In the multi-target branch, I found no need for the target_close vs > Pedro> target_xclose distinction. Heap-allocated targets simply delete > Pedro> themselves in their target_close implementation, while > Pedro> singleton/static targets don't. > > Pedro> The target_ops C++ification patches will add more commentary around > Pedro> target_ops's destructor, but there's no destructor yet... > > This looks good to me and it seems like the close/xclose distinction > already doesn't really make sense anyway. Thanks for taking a look Tom. I've merged it. Thanks, Pedro Alves