[patch 0/2] Unify lookup_symbol_in_objfile_symtabs

[patch 0/2] Unify lookup_symbol_in_objfile_symtabs

[Jan Kratochvil]

Hi,

I have seen
	[patchv3 2/2] Accelerate lookup_symbol_aux_objfile 85x
could be even applied in one other part of code which is duplicated now.

I am just not sure if we should go the route of
	struct objfile * -> const struct objfile *
or the other way of:
	const struct objfile * -> struct objfile *

Normally const adding is better but here I do not see much useful to have any
struct objfile * const and then it just causes pointer compatibility problems.

Please choose +const or -const variant for check-in.


Jan

Re: [patch 0/2] Unify lookup_symbol_in_objfile_symtabs

[Doug Evans]

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Jan Kratochvil
<jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have seen
>         [patchv3 2/2] Accelerate lookup_symbol_aux_objfile 85x
> could be even applied in one other part of code which is duplicated now.
>
> I am just not sure if we should go the route of
>         struct objfile * -> const struct objfile *
> or the other way of:
>         const struct objfile * -> struct objfile *
>
> Normally const adding is better but here I do not see much useful to have any
> struct objfile * const and then it just causes pointer compatibility problems.
>
> Please choose +const or -const variant for check-in.

Yeah, it's a toss up.

struct objfile is one case where I've decided to just leave the const
out and not worry about it.
But I'm ok with going either route.
If no one has a preference, pick something, and if you want me to then
I'd say go with no-const.
[FAOD, this is just for struct objfile *]

Re: [patch 0/2] Unify lookup_symbol_in_objfile_symtabs

[Jan Kratochvil]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 18:18:44 +0100, Doug Evans wrote:
> I'd say go with no-const.

I would also say so.

But is this also an approval for [patch 2/2]?  It may be also obvious one.


Thanks,
Jan

Re: [patch 0/2] Unify lookup_symbol_in_objfile_symtabs

[Doug Evans]

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Jan Kratochvil
<jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 18:18:44 +0100, Doug Evans wrote:
>> I'd say go with no-const.
>
> I would also say so.
>
> But is this also an approval for [patch 2/2]?  It may be also obvious one.

Naw, I still need to look at 2/2 more closely.