[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?
From: |
Roman Kennke |
Subject: |
Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ? |
Date: |
Tue, 03 Aug 2004 18:20:34 +0200 |
Hi there,
I agree, the TARGET layer makes things difficult to understand. And I
really don't like multi-line macros in C code. This is bad style IMHO.
What makes it worse is, that it is not clear at first sight, where
these macros are defined. There are better/easier-to-understand ways to
make code portable, I think.
This target layer makes maintainence of the code more difficult, at
least to those (like me), who are not familiar to it. I once tried to
find a bug in the network code, but couldn't figure out the indirections
in the code. Sorry.
Just my 2c.
/Roman
Am Di, den 03.08.2004 schrieb Michael Koch um 13:29:
> Hi list, hi Ingo,
>
>
>
> I just started porting/testing GNU classpath to solaris (2.6). Its not
> really different to other unices (we currently support linux and
> *BSD) but some things are. When I wanted to do the needed changes I
> stumbled over the TARGET_* layer which adds (in my eyes) some
> unneeded complexity. It makes it more hard to read the code and all
> the stuff seem to be implemented either in target/generic or
> target/Linux with no real rule what have to go where. It's just
> difficult to understand. In fact I try to understand it since a long
> time and always fail because of its "indirectness". Personally I
> think some AUTOCONF checks would be more appropriate and would make
> the code much more readable and bugfixable. There are some known bugs
> in it but noone attacked them because none understands the code it
> seems.
>
> Ingo: Now my question are you really using the TARGET_* system or is
> it only rotting around in GNU classpath ? I really wonder if some
> AUTOCONF macros would be more helpful for you ?
>
> If it is consensus that noone understands the cod and its good to
> rewrite it I can start it. Then I will do it slowly part for part and
> try to introduce as less as possible bugs. Unfortunately there will
> be bugs introduced. We are all humans. So this will need some testing
> on some archs, Linux, *.BSD, AIX, Solaris ... etc.
>
> What is your opinion on the TARGET_* system ?
>
> It would be nice to get a statement from the AICAS people too as they
> introduced it.
>
>
> Michael
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classpath mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, (continued)
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Mark Wielaard, 2004/08/08
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Andrew Haley, 2004/08/09
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Dalibor Topic, 2004/08/09
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Michael Koch, 2004/08/04
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Ingo Prötel, 2004/08/04
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Michael Koch, 2004/08/04
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Tom Tromey, 2004/08/04
Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?,
Roman Kennke <=
Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Steven Augart, 2004/08/06
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Mark Wielaard, 2004/08/06
- Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Andy Walter, 2004/08/06
- Classpath License, Phillosophy, and AICAS (was: Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?), Steven Augart, 2004/08/06
- Re: Classpath License, Phillosophy, and AICAS, Casey Marshall, 2004/08/10
- Re: Classpath License, Phillosophy, and AICAS, Michael Koch, 2004/08/11
- Re: Classpath License, Phillosophy, and AICAS, Casey Marshall, 2004/08/11
- Re: Classpath License, Phillosophy, and AICAS, Michael Koch, 2004/08/11
Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Steven Augart, 2004/08/07
Re: Removing the TARGET_* layer or not ?, Grzegorz B. Prokopski, 2004/08/08