On 12 August 2015 at 12:50, Denis V. Lunev <address@hidden> wrote:
From: Pavel Butsykin <address@hidden>
Move target-specific code out of /monitor.c to /target-*/monitor.c,
this will avoid code cluttering and using random ifdeffery. The solution
is quite simple, but solves the issue of the separation of target-specific
code from monitor
Signed-off-by: Pavel Butsykin <address@hidden>
Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <address@hidden>
CC: Luiz Capitulino <address@hidden>
CC: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
CC: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
---
include/monitor/monitor-common.h | 43 ++
monitor.c | 854 +--------------------------------------
target-i386/Makefile.objs | 2 +-
target-i386/monitor.c | 489 ++++++++++++++++++++++
target-ppc/Makefile.objs | 2 +-
target-ppc/monitor.c | 250 ++++++++++++
target-sh4/Makefile.objs | 1 +
target-sh4/monitor.c | 52 +++
target-sparc/Makefile.objs | 2 +-
target-sparc/monitor.c | 153 +++++++
target-xtensa/Makefile.objs | 1 +
target-xtensa/monitor.c | 34 ++
12 files changed, 1032 insertions(+), 851 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 include/monitor/monitor-common.h
create mode 100644 target-i386/monitor.c
create mode 100644 target-ppc/monitor.c
create mode 100644 target-sh4/monitor.c
create mode 100644 target-sparc/monitor.c
create mode 100644 target-xtensa/monitor.c
+#if defined(TARGET_SPARC) || defined(TARGET_PPC) || defined(TARGET_I386)
+extern const MonitorDef monitor_defs[];
+#else
+const MonitorDef monitor_defs[] = {};
#endif
So, rather than having to have a list of which targets provide
a monitor_defs[], I would suggest that we make the API implemented
by the target be a function, like:
const MonitorDef *target_monitor_defs(void);
(which just returns a pointer to a static const array in
the target-*/monitor.c file). Then you can add a file
stubs/target-monitor-defs.c which provides the "stub" version
of this function (just returns a pointer to the no-commands
array). The link process will arrange that the stub version
is pulled in for any target that doesn't provide its own
implementation of the function.
Other than that, I suspect we can improve the separation
out of target-specific things, but this is a good
improvement and it'll be easier to do the rest as
incremental fixes on top of this later.
thanks
-- PMM