* [Discussion] what about change the arguments of create_breakpoint to a struct?
@ 2012-08-02 5:39 Hui Zhu
2012-08-02 9:17 ` Pedro Alves
2012-08-03 1:21 ` Stan Shebs
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Hui Zhu @ 2012-08-02 5:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
Hi guys,
create_breakpoint have 15 argument. I am not sure its number will
increase or not. But this number is increasing recently.
I thought it make code work about breakpoint not very easy.
So I suggest change the arguments of create_breakpoint to a struct.
What do you think about it?
Best,
Hui
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Discussion] what about change the arguments of create_breakpoint to a struct?
2012-08-02 5:39 [Discussion] what about change the arguments of create_breakpoint to a struct? Hui Zhu
@ 2012-08-02 9:17 ` Pedro Alves
2012-08-02 21:00 ` Tom Tromey
2012-08-03 1:21 ` Stan Shebs
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Pedro Alves @ 2012-08-02 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hui Zhu; +Cc: gdb
On 08/02/2012 06:39 AM, Hui Zhu wrote:
> create_breakpoint have 15 argument. I am not sure its number will
> increase or not. But this number is increasing recently.
> I thought it make code work about breakpoint not very easy.
>
> So I suggest change the arguments of create_breakpoint to a struct.
> What do you think about it?
I agree.
--
Pedro Alves
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Discussion] what about change the arguments of create_breakpoint to a struct?
2012-08-02 9:17 ` Pedro Alves
@ 2012-08-02 21:00 ` Tom Tromey
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2012-08-02 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pedro Alves; +Cc: Hui Zhu, gdb
>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
>> So I suggest change the arguments of create_breakpoint to a struct.
>> What do you think about it?
Pedro> I agree.
It would be fine by me, too, though I would ask that you please wait
until Keith's recent changes have been reviewed; or perhaps base your
changes on his.
Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Discussion] what about change the arguments of create_breakpoint to a struct?
2012-08-02 5:39 [Discussion] what about change the arguments of create_breakpoint to a struct? Hui Zhu
2012-08-02 9:17 ` Pedro Alves
@ 2012-08-03 1:21 ` Stan Shebs
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Stan Shebs @ 2012-08-03 1:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
On 8/1/12 10:39 PM, Hui Zhu wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> create_breakpoint have 15 argument. I am not sure its number will
> increase or not. But this number is increasing recently.
> I thought it make code work about breakpoint not very easy.
>
> So I suggest change the arguments of create_breakpoint to a struct.
> What do you think about it?
>
Yeah, I've thought about that a couple times too. The arguments from
arg to wanted_type seem like a logical group, basically the
proto-breakpoint properties. It occurs to me that there is some
conceptual overlap with uploaded tracepoints and breakpoints, which also
work with a package of properties that may or may not correspond to an
actual breakpoint, so maybe we can cover all of those cases with a
generic breakpoint_properties struct that is raw data with no
constraints imposed on it.
And as Tom said, you'll need to coordinate with Keith.
Stan
stan@codesourcery.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-08-03 1:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-08-02 5:39 [Discussion] what about change the arguments of create_breakpoint to a struct? Hui Zhu
2012-08-02 9:17 ` Pedro Alves
2012-08-02 21:00 ` Tom Tromey
2012-08-03 1:21 ` Stan Shebs
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).