From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14865 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2013 18:23:30 -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 14854 invoked by uid 89); 6 Dec 2013 18:23:29 -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,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 18:23:27 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rB6INJGQ014764 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:23:20 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-93.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.93]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rB6INI5D019370 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:23:18 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/9] add "this" pointers to more target APIs References: <1382464769-2465-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1382464769-2465-3-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <526E8AF2.7050202@redhat.com> <87r4b5cpxd.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <526E9451.6050103@redhat.com> <87mwltcp8v.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <527D2323.2010708@redhat.com> <87ob5uodry.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <527D5D58.4030707@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 18:23:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <527D5D58.4030707@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Fri, 08 Nov 2013 21:53:28 +0000") Message-ID: <87siu5kfe1.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: 2013-12/txt/msg00259.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Tom> I'll remove "is_async". Unless you'd rather I remove "can_async". Pedro> No, that's fine. "is_async" would be my choice as well. I looked deeper than the two are still subtly different. Specifically, remote.c delegates to serial: return serial_can_async_p (rs->remote_desc); return serial_is_async_p (rs->remote_desc); And these really do differ: int serial_can_async_p (struct serial *scb) { return (scb->ops->async != NULL); } int serial_is_async_p (struct serial *scb) { return (scb->ops->async != NULL) && (scb->async_handler != NULL); } I find it a bit odd that the upper layers rely on the serial layer to do this bookkeeping. Tom