Hiding and not implementing the copy constructor is a pre-C++11 thing.
It should also be noted that a copy constructor, as defined by the
language, contains a const qualifier on its parameter, so this wouldn't
have prevented copies from being performed.
Now that everything has been changed to use the new structs, the old
methods and structs can be removed.
And while I was changing the base device class, I also moved the
"unsupported command" code to a separate function. It was pretty silly
to copy the same 3 lines for ~5 commands.
This adds well-defined structs that are responsible for parsing
resource requests, instead of duplicating the logic and offsets all
over IOS HLE. Command handler functions are now passed parsed requests
instead of a command address.
This may not seem like a very important change, but it removes the
need to remember all of the struct offsets or copy/paste existing
struct request variables. It also prevents nasty bugs which have
occurred in the past, such as parsing an ioctl as if it were an ioctlv
(that's way too easy to do if you pass command addresses directly);
or writing something to 0x0, which can easily happen by mistake with
a close handler that can be called with invalid command addresses.
Bonus changes:
- The return code is not an obscure Memory::Write_U32 anymore, but an
explicit, more obvious SetReturnValue() call. (Which correctly takes
a s32 instead of a u32, since return codes are signed.)
- Open handlers are now only responsible for returning an IOS ret code,
and Close handlers don't return anything and don't have to worry
about checking whether the request is a real one anymore.
- DumpAsync was moved to the ioctlv request struct, because it did
not really make sense to make it part of the IOS device and it only
works for ioctlvs.
All current usages have been removed; they will be readded in a
later commit.
As of this commit, nothing uses the structs yet. Usages will be
migrated progressively.
Hiding and not implementing the copy constructor is a pre-C++11 thing.
It should also be noted that a copy constructor, as defined by the language,
contains a const qualifier on its parameter, so this wouldn't have
prevented copies from being performed.
It also follows that if the copy constructor is deleted, then copy
assignment should also be forbidden.
