From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22834 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2013 16:19:06 -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 22821 invoked by uid 89); 14 Oct 2013 16:19:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:19:05 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9EGJ4ba016957 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:19:04 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9EGJ3No000821; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:19:03 -0400 Message-ID: <525C1976.8030001@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:19:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: Ondrej Oprala , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/18] poison "private" References: <1381339053-14519-1-git-send-email-ooprala@redhat.com> <1381339053-14519-6-git-send-email-ooprala@redhat.com> <525BB010.3050105@redhat.com> <87ob6r3lvo.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87ob6r3lvo.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00440.txt.bz2 On 10/14/2013 04:36 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves 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