Re: target_op(..) -> target_op(target, ...) obvious

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>]

> Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> So, in this patch, the calls would all pass a pointer to the global
> variable 'current_target', right?  Or would it also include changes to
> functions' interfaces to pass the target around explicitly?

"yes".   Just like regcache, gdbarch, and frame, it would start out 
using current_gdbarch but then, over time evolve, to more correctly pass 
explicit parameters (be that frame, thread, regcache, or target).

Oh, "this patch" doesn't exist.  The intent is for this, again just like 
the other changes, to be rolled out over comming months.

Oh, one motivation for me starting process is that it will let me 
parameterize CONVERT_FROM_FUNC_PTR_ADDR with an explicit target and that 
will in turn let me fix the entry-point problem you encountered with 
PPC64 GNU/Linux.

Andrew