From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 40468 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2019 22:03:59 -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 40455 invoked by uid 89); 6 Mar 2019 22:03:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Spam-Relays-External:2001 X-HELO: mail-wr1-f65.google.com Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com (HELO mail-wr1-f65.google.com) (209.85.221.65) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 22:03:49 +0000 Received: by mail-wr1-f65.google.com with SMTP id o17so15169081wrw.3 for ; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 14:03:48 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f913:f700:4c97:6d52:2cea:997b? ([2001:8a0:f913:f700:4c97:6d52:2cea:997b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a8sm4637338wmh.26.2019.03.06.14.03.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Mar 2019 14:03:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 22/22] Introduce and use bcache_up To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20190227201849.32210-1-tom@tromey.com> <20190227201849.32210-23-tom@tromey.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <6b7f0a4c-f06b-9046-c91d-ae402eae6c51@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 22:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190227201849.32210-23-tom@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-03/txt/msg00132.txt.bz2 On 02/27/2019 08:18 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > This introduces a new bcache_up typedef, which is a unique_ptr > specialization for managing a bcache. Then, this changes various > spots to use this object, rather than manually calling bcache_xfree. > This lets us remove a try/catch that only existed to call > bcache_xfree. I won't object, but is seems to me that it'd be better to make bcache_xmalloc / bcache_free ctors/dtors of struct bcache, and then we'd allocate a bcache object on the stack (and likewise hold bcache objects in structures instead of bcache pointers). Thanks, Pedro Alves