From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4540 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2018 19:31:36 -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 4526 invoked by uid 89); 6 Apr 2018 19:31:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-25.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_0,GIT_PATCH_1,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=sk:invalid, breakpointc, UD:breakpoint.c, breakpoint.c X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 19:31:34 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09970406E8A4; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 19:31:33 +0000 (UTC) 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 88B94215CDC6; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 19:31:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [RFA 02/12] Change breakpoints to use value_ref_ptr To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20180405211507.6103-1-tom@tromey.com> <20180405211507.6103-3-tom@tromey.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 19:31:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180405211507.6103-3-tom@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-04/txt/msg00100.txt.bz2 On 04/05/2018 10:14 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > 4 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gdb/breakpoint.c b/gdb/breakpoint.c > index 68292626d3..67ba5a6b31 100644 > --- a/gdb/breakpoint.c > +++ b/gdb/breakpoint.c > @@ -1740,8 +1740,7 @@ update_watchpoint (struct watchpoint *b, int reparse) > no longer relevant. We don't want to report a watchpoint hit > to the user when the old value and the new value may actually > be completely different objects. */ > - value_decref (b->val); > - b->val = NULL; > + b->val.reset (nullptr); Just OOC, wouldn't the old "b->val = NULL;" work the same as the reset call? > b->val_valid = 0; > @@ -14533,7 +14516,7 @@ invalidate_bp_value_on_memory_change (struct inferior *inferior, > { > struct watchpoint *wp = (struct watchpoint *) bp; > > - if (wp->val_valid && wp->val) > + if (wp->val_valid && wp->val.get ()) Nit, about this get(): I wonder whether we should add an explicit operator bool() implementation to gdb_ref_ptr to avoid it. I guess we should instead write the explicit: if (wp->val_valid && wp->val != nullptr) making that moot. Thanks, Pedro Alves