From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12997 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2004 19:30:54 -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 12989 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2004 19:30:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Aug 2004 19:30:53 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1BttNd-00078G-HM; Sun, 08 Aug 2004 15:30:53 -0400 Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 19:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/dwarf/doc] Inter-compilation-unit reference support for partial DIEs Message-ID: <20040808193053.GA27352@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com References: <20040420170855.GA31548@nevyn.them.org> <20040617034201.GD23443@nevyn.them.org> <20040715184431.GA25807@nevyn.them.org> <20040804230536.GA30848@nevyn.them.org> <20040805180341.GB9011@nevyn.them.org> <20040807220115.GA25874@nevyn.them.org> <20040808181741.GB26005@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040808181741.GB26005@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00268.txt.bz2 On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 02:17:41PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 11:39:53PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > > Well, you understand that I'm trying to get at really has nothing to > > do with correctness, or performance, or anything like that. I want > > the structures to look more "normal". I don't see that they task > > they're carrying out is so strange that they shouldn't match the > > idioms everyone's got wired into their heads better, to maximize the > > chances that they get the big picture from a casual read. > > > > How about putting the 'read_in' links all in the always-present > > structs? That way the linked list looks more like a linked list: it > > actually points to an instance of the same structure that contains it. > > And we can blow four bytes per CU. Then, if we need it, put a link in > > the structure for read-in CU's back to the always-present structs. > > You need to make this decision one way or another, because the current > idiom makes perfect sense to me, so the change would gain me no clarity > at the expense of an extra pointer. If you'd like me to make that > change, I'll do it. > > The object is a struct dwarf2_per_cu_data. Each is either in the > read-in or not-read-in state; if it is in the read-in state there is a > dwarf2_cu which is owned by this object, containing additional state > variables. One of the additional state variables is the pointer to the > next item in the list of read-in objects. That didn't come out very well. Let me try again. It sounds like you would consider it clearer to have the read_in pointer in the dwarf2_per_cu_data structure, instead of in the dwarf2_cu structure that it points to. Shall I make that change? -- Daniel Jacobowitz