From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22849 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2017 14:44:22 -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 20124 invoked by uid 89); 9 Oct 2017 14:44:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-25.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_0,GIT_PATCH_1,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 14:44:21 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1132C552F1; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 14:44:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 1132C552F1 Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=palves@redhat.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6203C6886F; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 14:44:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gdbserver: Use std::list for all_dlls To: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20171009143036.10215-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <20171009143036.10215-2-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 14:44:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171009143036.10215-2-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-10/txt/msg00208.txt.bz2 On 10/09/2017 03:30 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: > diff --git a/gdb/gdbserver/dll.h b/gdb/gdbserver/dll.h > index 39e5eb0653..52f924bc85 100644 > --- a/gdb/gdbserver/dll.h > +++ b/gdb/gdbserver/dll.h > @@ -18,17 +18,15 @@ > #ifndef DLL_H > #define DLL_H > > +#include > + > struct dll_info > { > - /* This must appear first. See inferiors.h. > - The list iterator functions assume it. */ > - struct inferior_list_entry entry; > - > char *name; > CORE_ADDR base_addr; > }; > > -extern struct inferior_list all_dlls; > +extern std::list all_dlls; Is there a reason for making this a list of dll_info pointers instead of a list of dll_info objects? If you make this a list of objects, then each list node + dll_info is allocated in one go, very much like the current code. With a list of pointers, you have an extra allocation/indirection for each dll_info (one for node + pointer, another for the dll_info pointee). Thanks, Pedro Alves