From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22371 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2002 20:53:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 22363 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2002 20:53:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2002 20:53:35 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 189Y6d-0001dr-00; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 15:52:59 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 189XC3-0001XO-00; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 15:54:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 12:53:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA/types: Clean up use of field bitsize Message-ID: <20021106205431.GA5787@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020930010515.GA27762@nevyn.them.org> <20021030234148.GA22769@nevyn.them.org> <3DC97E66.70807@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DC97E66.70807@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00124.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 03:41:10PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Does anyone have a comment on this patch? If not, I'll commit it in a > >couple of days, after I'm added to the global write list. > > > >(The type code has no specific maintainer, the debug reader and > >language parts I consider obvious, and the patch is over a month old > >now.) > > I'm mainly wondering if we're that desperate for memory space. > > I thought a data structure was added to GDB so that it could spot > duplicate type info and, hence, keep its memory size down. If so, I don't see it. The debug readers will create a new copy when they hit a new definition. Besides, wasting memory is still bad. And that's not the reason I did it, anyway: > >>The goal is to allow more kinds of fields to be marked artificial - > >>particularly data members. After this patch I'll submit the followup to > >>mark DW_AT_artificial members as artificial types. ... in other words, moving artificial out of loc without wasting an additional 32 bits. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer