From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24854 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2014 17:18:48 -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 24843 invoked by uid 89); 3 Dec 2014 17:18:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-vc0-f174.google.com Received: from mail-vc0-f174.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f174.google.com) (209.85.220.174) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:18:46 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id id10so6818884vcb.5 for ; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:18:44 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ShblWlk6hjWT+mkrcM0Chwe/9vj1eWkiM64WV45Akr8=; b=bdIwqK56ABdASpKcknC7jZYzDKLbOxJKnZeIhxYah0K2R0nFkkLUhs1dIBXFjRYfLi ZaED+mxGr8dNeXG2QSGkmdF/fBuC3BQpQZY5n6QCw/MipGVdxP6quB5tMc+3NC1p1wDE gicrFnqgDZv0DhHEtASLWS2xrGm9Sx7sGUI4cJWgfYEkTKYfLAHKOIEAUAFhzLSQS7Db yv3h2HNizcvWFBJ1Qzw/eJ8Uo85ur8k+/9tDVCgycCFrpyyvmSY9dEBJuaPHWpfCp/Bx 3C83dJcH02Sm1E6oYyuy9HZDbh6KDLAYc/g8dmJst+PDbgm93c+8EnNp0K/K/CdOyjDY 1GQw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlHDHwaGzqqnmSInk8hVttxadaeYTloUDn7rIs9vrDKcHkG0SPhI7fJRnFi2JzHLV6aoWbz MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.121.82 with SMTP id li18mr3033248vdb.82.1417627124551; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:18:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.114.101 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 09:18:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20141203170650.GA25020@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20141203170650.GA25020@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:18:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] Unify lookup_symbol_in_objfile_symtabs From: Doug Evans To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg00068.txt.bz2 On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Jan Kratochvil 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 *]