From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 8J9kEKX3WmG6bwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 04 Oct 2021 08:46:29 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 3CD001EE1A; Mon, 4 Oct 2021 08:46:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,RDNS_DYNAMIC, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C190C1E813 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2021 08:46:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C12413858D35 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2021 12:46:27 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C12413858D35 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1633351587; bh=WNh17OBXM6mVTH9DN9jSEK0psf/mmnXsgQmYdCTFlWg=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=S2PdWLQukkOKr9rZ8A8bfW4Fn9HUCF9/fPDCzuQnSkp8ixCemr7Hcezlbu28671TY K24mgQh89IBwxQd95eughA/3ILy+ZwSyclm5SLLQdHT2cRlqY7ssGfoMc6KpBxFko+ tRhVS8/+xGvOi5pebhbI32cekIM9u74dI+mTF9TI= Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B0263858D35 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2021 12:46:09 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6B0263858D35 Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A139E201FC; Mon, 4 Oct 2021 12:46:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68DC113CEE; Mon, 4 Oct 2021 12:46:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id X3o5F5D3WmFrLgAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Mon, 04 Oct 2021 12:46:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] [gdb/symtab] Fix htab_find_slot call in read_call_site_scope To: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20211001123328.22314-1-tdevries@suse.de> <113a7cab-f06b-32ad-caa1-b0c87e67335b@polymtl.ca> <24809991-4982-9951-a7f7-514a2d01cd10@polymtl.ca> Message-ID: <17aa014b-2500-14f0-81af-a5de2a98e657@suse.de> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 14:46:07 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <24809991-4982-9951-a7f7-514a2d01cd10@polymtl.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Tom de Vries Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 10/4/21 2:05 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: >>> Ah, I had not seen this comment. So it was on purpose. Still, I think >>> that it makes it more confusing than anything. The patch LGTM. >> >> And, this follow-up commit reverts everything except the comment. >> >> Any comments? >> >> Thanks, >> - Tom >> > > Is there a problem with having the lookups done with just the pc? Well, there's the problem that I describe in the commit message. I don't known of any other problem. > If we > were to replace this with some C++ hash table, say std::unordered_map, it > would be std::unordered_map. Right, because there's a separation between key and element. > So doing > the lookups using just the pc in the htab makes sense to me. I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. Do you agree with the patch? Do you disagree with the patch. Are you suggesting an alternative solution? Thanks, - Tom