From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9531 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2004 15:04:46 -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 9427 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2004 15:04:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 21 Sep 2004 15:04:44 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1C9mCC-0003j2-CW; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:04:44 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:04:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/intercu] Preserve DIE types Message-ID: <20040921150444.GA14258@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20040921023139.GA25706@nevyn.them.org> <20040921125116.GA9804@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00341.txt.bz2 On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 10:01:34AM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:25:14AM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > > > > > > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > > > The only solution I could find was to cache this information, specifically > > > > the DIE -> type mapping. > > > > > > I think that's the only correct thing to do. > > > > > > > Tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu. OK? > > > > > > It looks fine. Just one question: in set_die_type, why do you check > > > whether cu->per_cu is NULL? Under what circumstances would we be > > > associating types to dies in a compilation unit that is not considered > > > "read in"? > > > > cu->per_cu != NULL is the flag which indicates that we've seen an > > inter-compilation-unit reference. If we haven't, then we'll read in > > this compilation unit but discard it completely when we're done with > > it. > > Okay, that's right --- based on the forms we see used in the abbrev > table. Thanks. All good, then. Thanks, checked in. -- Daniel Jacobowitz