From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12535 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2014 15:18:38 -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 12520 invoked by uid 89); 15 Jul 2014 15:18:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:18:36 +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 s6FFIYCg022428 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:18:34 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-27.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.27]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6FFIXah015748 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:18:34 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] auto-generate most target debug methods References: <1403208237-27023-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <53C5042B.6080406@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:20:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <53C5042B.6080406@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:36:27 +0100") Message-ID: <87a98a1whj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00385.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> What I'm not sure I like is the need for new typedefs. Seems odd to Pedro> me to have a textual mismatch between the declaration and all Pedro> the implementations. Yeah. Pedro> Did you try an __attribute__(())-like approach? I thought of it, but I didn't give it a try, I think just because the whole idea was speculative enough that I didn't want to sink a lot of time into it. Pedro> void (*to_resume) (struct target_ops *, ptid_t, int step, Pedro> enum gdb_signal) Pedro> TARGET_DEBUG_PRINT (step, print_target_resume_step) Pedro> TARGET_DEFAULT_NORETURN (noprocess ()); Syntactically I think I prefer the attributes next to the parameters; though perhaps this other approach can be used to solve the debug_print_register problem. I'll go a bit deeper. Tom