From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28926 invoked by alias); 7 Jul 2009 14:59:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 28918 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jul 2009 14:59:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:59:35 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A809108CB; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:59:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E14104AB; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:59:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MOC8o-0005Lh-9F; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:59:30 -0400 Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:59:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: reference counting for value Message-ID: <20090707145930.GA18388@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20090707014914.GA30559@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-07/txt/msg00196.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 08:25:44AM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > Another idea I've been kicking around a bit is to also reference count > the contents. This would solve this particular problem without > needing a bitfield->parent reference, as the two would just share some > structure. Would it? We need to be able to fetch the contents in response to a request from the bitfield, so everything needed to unlazy would have to be in the shared structure; I guess that's address and length, here. Also lval type. Would we have to duplicate these in the value and the shared contents? If two values have a shared contents structure, I'm not sure what point there is having them different value structures in the first place. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery