From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id qQSIFrMnXmBFSgAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 14:28:03 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 4BFE41EF7C; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 14:28:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 968BA1E789 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 14:28:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A8473860C32; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 18:28:02 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0A8473860C32 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1616783282; bh=xLOQXA7APDAM4zgxeqkLAWpya4rJcgNSFtF3efOe5hM=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=c/7S0wRhlAw/1EtuwZYZMgqX8eDyCvnM9MuAVxhdYB6ur0YeGJktrwmW4Uh8bimf+ zNRGabOMjG7PGHO1pkLAzZG2D0dTOJ8OksOdvPMIkjku4bGIzjSUPcKZyLLN0+GM/N 6UTiDfCsgtiFhOdojf+eAu3N0X94acxkOtGBIj3A= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B3AF385801A for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 18:27:59 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 3B3AF385801A 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 12QIRroW031936 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 26 Mar 2021 14:27:58 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 12QIRroW031936 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (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 8E9C21E789; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 14:27:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Allow expand_symtabs_matching to examine imported psymtabs To: Tom Tromey References: <20210324201510.23655-1-tom@tromey.com> <20210324201510.23655-2-tom@tromey.com> <514da557-94e9-23c3-df1a-59ae42e32399@polymtl.ca> <8735whg4oo.fsf@tromey.com> Message-ID: <8d703a88-7ff7-bc74-5e3d-cee32c6c8608@polymtl.ca> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 14:27:53 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8735whg4oo.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Fri, 26 Mar 2021 18:27:53 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-03-26 2:17 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote:>>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi writes: > >>> - /* We skip shared psymtabs because file-matching doesn't apply >>> - to them; but we search them later in the loop. */ >>> - if (ps->user != NULL) >>> - continue; >>> - > > Simon> I'm not against this change, but I don't understand it. It seems > Simon> logical to me to skip shared psymtabs, because we'll reach them through > Simon> some other psymtabs that include them. So, both versions seem correct, > Simon> but maybe knowing why it's convenient to you would help. > > If the shared psymtab has a file name, then that file name will not be > checked by the file matcher. This doesn't matter directly now because > file matching is often done via a different method, that does check > these. However, with my proposed series to remove the redundant > methods, this issue is exposed. Ok, thanks. Simon