On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Paul Richards <paulr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2010/12/10 18:46, Spencer Oliver wrote: >> >> Not looked into it but why do we not just duplicate the existing >> unregister event/timer functions - or are they broken aswell? >> > > They (the target versions) don't appear to have the same problem. The only > difference I can see is that the jtag_unregister_event_callback() continues > to look for further events to unregister. I'm not familiar enough with the > code to know why that might be possible. Easy enough to continue iterating > if it is required. > > Now there's 3 versions to choose from :-) I would have copied these had I > known they were there. >
It's not too late. The target versions seems nice and readable. And correct, as far as I can see this late hour. I think the jtag version should follow the behavior of these and only remove the first matching handler. That would be the correct thing to do, if there was a point in having the same handler registered more than once. The only issue I have with copying the target version is that having the same code duplicated in three places probably warrants refactoring it into a helper function instead. Regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
