From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 45930 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2019 16:14:21 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 31307 invoked by uid 89); 13 Dec 2019 16:14:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: smtp.polymtl.ca Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (HELO smtp.polymtl.ca) (132.207.4.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 16:14:08 +0000 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id xBDGE0E7018501 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 13 Dec 2019 11:14:04 -0500 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca xBDGE0E7018501 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=polymtl.ca; s=default; t=1576253645; bh=UoZUt06WYKWRFDhhi4GFbNNmlFDBAhu95WbZYLbLdps=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=D3gV1F8sw6x4a4SYmo6qxgfzsJkCI4ZFsWQuIgAPOy0lZAshFyRwdveLfPuULMH1E 9DgChwXuJbq2JAYXmTcIMPG3FEk33RycJrq5A8aZ+U3hk2oy6JLSPpkaR1t8595F3k +4wm2eKwRtbDBVWFU97INYm2VZjKESDcAzIVa6IQ= Received: from [172.16.0.95] (192-222-181-218.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.181.218]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E5CE61E573; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 11:13:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] jit: make gdb_symtab::blocks a vector To: Christian Biesinger Cc: gdb-patches References: <20191213060323.1799590-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <20191213060323.1799590-5-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <4eb506cf-b407-82b8-8f5d-e2c0481c431f@polymtl.ca> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <5c3290f8-f1be-ab9f-986d-ab44d141da38@polymtl.ca> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 16:14:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg00601.txt.bz2 On 2019-12-13 11:08 a.m., Christian Biesinger via gdb-patches wrote: > I personally prefer this one. And maybe add a comment that the block that > encloses the other one should come first? The order in which blocks appear in a blockvector is already explained in the comment on top of struct block, in block.h, so I didn't want to duplicate it. But I can certainly point to it explicitly in the comment above the std::sort call: /* Sort the blocks in the order they should appear in the blockvector. See the comment on top of struct block, in block.h, for more details. */ Does that sound good?