From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18352 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2003 13:13:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18343 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2003 13:13:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Oct 2003 13:13:37 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8942B8F for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:13:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F855EFF.9080300@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:13:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: target_op(..) -> target_op(target, ...) obvious Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00145.txt.bz2 As part of the on-going OO of GDB, the "target vector" is one of the next things up for treatment. I'd like to be sure that everyones ok with the mechanical transformatioin: target_OP (...) -> taget_OP (target, ...) being considered "fairly obvious" (post patch, give it a few days, commit patch). Pushing the target around is going to involve touching files across maintenance boundraries. thoughts? Andrew