Re: question about harddrv.{h,cc}

In fact, I see this in other files in iodev/ such as keyboard.{h,cc}.  
Is there a reason for the differences or are these bugs?  In the case of 
keyboad.cc, we see the following:

 BX_KEY_THIS timer_handle = bx_pc_system.register_timer(this,  ... );

I would think that this should be:

 BX_KEY_THIS_PTR timer_handle = 
bx_pc_system.register_timer(BX_KEY_THIS, ... );

Perhaps I am not reading this correctly.

--Brian

Brian Slechta wrote:

> In the CVS of harddrv.{h,cc}, there are macros for making the class 
> completely static.  I realize that this has speed implications when 
> there is only one hard drive class that needs to be instantiated.  In 
> any case, the following marcos are in mainline CVS:
>
>  #  define BX_HD_SMF  static
>  #  define BX_HD_THIS_PTR theHardDrive->
>  #  define BX_HD_THIS (theHardDrive)
>  #else
>  #  define BX_HD_SMF
>  #  define BX_HD_THIS_PTR this->
>  #  define BX_HD_THIS this->
>  #endif
>
> This does not appear consistent with other classes in Bochs that use 
> this construct.  Shouldn't BX_HD_THIS be defined as "this" rather than 
> "this->"?  Also, functions in harddrv.cc reference "this" directly.  
> Shouldn't these functions use BX_HD_THIS instead?
>
> Thanks,
> Brian




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
help you create better code?  SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/