Eliminate target_ops::to_xclose
Commit Message
In the multi-target branch, I found no need for the target_close vs
target_xclose distinction. Heap-allocated targets simply delete
themselves in their target_close implementation, while
singleton/static targets don't.
The target_ops C++ification patches will add more commentary around
target_ops's destructor, but there's no destructor yet...
gdb/ChangeLog:
yyyy-mm-dd Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
* bfd-target.c (target_bfd_xclose): Rename to ...
(target_bfd_close): ... this.
(target_bfd_reopen): Adjust.
* target.c (target_close): Remove references to to_xclose.
* target.h (target_ops::to_xclose): Delete.
(target_ops::to_close): Update comments.
---
gdb/bfd-target.c | 4 ++--
gdb/target.c | 4 +---
gdb/target.h | 9 +++++----
3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Comments
>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
Pedro> In the multi-target branch, I found no need for the target_close vs
Pedro> target_xclose distinction. Heap-allocated targets simply delete
Pedro> themselves in their target_close implementation, while
Pedro> singleton/static targets don't.
Pedro> The target_ops C++ification patches will add more commentary around
Pedro> target_ops's destructor, but there's no destructor yet...
This looks good to me and it seems like the close/xclose distinction
already doesn't really make sense anyway.
Tom
On 04/27/2018 04:24 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
>
> Pedro> In the multi-target branch, I found no need for the target_close vs
> Pedro> target_xclose distinction. Heap-allocated targets simply delete
> Pedro> themselves in their target_close implementation, while
> Pedro> singleton/static targets don't.
>
> Pedro> The target_ops C++ification patches will add more commentary around
> Pedro> target_ops's destructor, but there's no destructor yet...
>
> This looks good to me and it seems like the close/xclose distinction
> already doesn't really make sense anyway.
Thanks for taking a look Tom. I've merged it.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ target_bfd_get_section_table (struct target_ops *ops)
}
static void
-target_bfd_xclose (struct target_ops *t)
+target_bfd_close (struct target_ops *t)
{
struct target_bfd_data *data = (struct target_bfd_data *) t->to_data;
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ target_bfd_reopen (struct bfd *abfd)
t->to_doc = _("You should never see this");
t->to_get_section_table = target_bfd_get_section_table;
t->to_xfer_partial = target_bfd_xfer_partial;
- t->to_xclose = target_bfd_xclose;
+ t->to_close = target_bfd_close;
t->to_data = data;
t->to_magic = OPS_MAGIC;
@@ -3416,9 +3416,7 @@ target_close (struct target_ops *targ)
fileio_handles_invalidate_target (targ);
- if (targ->to_xclose != NULL)
- targ->to_xclose (targ);
- else if (targ->to_close != NULL)
+ if (targ->to_close != NULL)
targ->to_close (targ);
if (targetdebug)
@@ -418,11 +418,12 @@ struct target_ops
stack. Targets should supply this routine, if only to provide
an error message. */
void (*to_open) (const char *, int);
- /* Old targets with a static target vector provide "to_close".
- New re-entrant targets provide "to_xclose" and that is expected
- to xfree everything (including the "struct target_ops"). */
- void (*to_xclose) (struct target_ops *targ);
+
+ /* Close the target. This is where the target can handle
+ teardown. Heap-allocated targets should delete themselves
+ before returning. */
void (*to_close) (struct target_ops *);
+
/* Attaches to a process on the target side. Arguments are as
passed to the `attach' command by the user. This routine can
be called when the target is not on the target-stack, if the