From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 118660 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2016 04:29:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 118631 invoked by uid 89); 1 Oct 2016 04:29:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=restoring, appropriately, H*r:112, HX-Envelope-From:sk:simon.m X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 04:29:16 +0000 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 638E41E13A; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 00:29:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from simark.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FD421E109; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 00:29:14 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 04:29:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA 08/22] Record minimal symbols directly in reader. In-Reply-To: <1474949330-4307-9-git-send-email-tom@tromey.com> References: <1474949330-4307-1-git-send-email-tom@tromey.com> <1474949330-4307-9-git-send-email-tom@tromey.com> Message-ID: <1bd8bed63872ee567495bf23bc3fe35f@simark.ca> X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 On 2016-09-27 00:08, Tom Tromey wrote: > This patch changes minimal symbol creation in two ways. First, it > removes global variables in favor of members of > scoped_minimal_symbol_reader. Second, it changes functions like > prim_record_minimal_symbol to be member functions of > scoped_minimal_symbol_reader. I think this patch (and the previous ones that lead to it) are great. That's the kind of thing that will make the data flow easier to understand. About the naming, it's a bit of a nit, but since it might set the standard for future classes, I prefer to ask anyway. Does it help in any way to prefix this class' name with "scoped_"? All C++ class/objects are "scoped" when statically allocated in a scope, meaning that they get destroyed when execution goes out of that scope. So it's not really the property of the class itself that it's scoped, more about how it's being used. It would be a bit like naming "std::string" -> "std::scoped_string", since it frees its resources when being destroyed. "minimal_symbol_reader" sounds like a perfect name for that class, doesn't it? On the other hand, I think scoped_restore is appropriately named, since it conveys that its primary (and only?) reason to exist is to be used in conjunction with scopes to do some variable restoring. Simon