On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 23:02 -0400, Duane Ellis wrote: > duane> Either (A) - is done via a cascade of #include files - > effectively what > duane> we have today, #include <STAR.dot.STAR>, and is shown below via > "arm11.c" > > zach> That simply is not true. I spent a lot of time cleaning up things, > and > zach> the tree of headers that you show below is a _gross_ improvement > zach> on what was going on before. I can improve this mess further, and > zach> without using a common header like you suggest. > > But we have a "common header file" now, 'types.h'
For common types. Types that are used throughout the entire tree. Please try the patch that I posted under my new thread on this topic. It cleans up types.h to make this statement hold more water. > zach> I think that tree is beautiful compared to what it used to be. > > I agree, what you have done is *FAR* better, all that I am saying is > put 'struct target_s;' (and others) in the file "types.h" > > And it will be even better! No. It won't. Did you ignore my points about modularity entirely? > ====== > > I believe that as we go forward, and clean up things - the boiler plate > list code will just grow. Okay, I am not entirely opposed to the general idea that you have; however, I am not willing to break layering to "solve" this problem. What about providing one <openocd/*/types.h> file per module for this purpose? This will preserve layering but solve the problem you see. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
