From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id OkaLCKdkT2fg7gIAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 03 Dec 2024 15:05:59 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1733256359; bh=g8T0tJDSkSMpI3BVwQKbmrjzlkKtrQb7SFSih6wT4mo=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=ZF0AgRN/X+5P46pgacOXQg0Qvw7+Kh34o5zdGbIlrZQ2c8phpfyL44VMoc/Ht1bgG 5BXMHNNUYYD6X1b0uLhu56rFV0VWUGnc6dDm7UsLHcsMuIXOHPdZAV0B4qL4VgHT+6 E1dQK+VmmYA+u/qFlvbLG7zTQMsf76g7uz+NPi3M= Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 15FA21E0BB; Tue, 3 Dec 2024 15:05:59 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=NQ/dHLxp; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=LcX2gvxz; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C09C71E05C for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2024 15:05:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46DAD3858D3C for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:05:58 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 46DAD3858D3C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=NQ/dHLxp; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=LcX2gvxz Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB1573858D26 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:05:24 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org EB1573858D26 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org EB1573858D26 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=158.69.221.121 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1733256325; cv=none; b=BOEldmsyJ/C/PBZXwqyHCBmeDPOoh45zLYEWZrd5xwE59P4iBsDcMZlOd4P+lj3eSLa2vaUJQ0MUkO+3rvanhYkEVjQ2yQ8ZnJIy8OloXEsMNIA2NfX1VpUhPrWI9evFSN82pq48Se37V6VvHzRGG2lQSDJn+tl0O9UzpnxQ6MA= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1733256325; c=relaxed/simple; bh=g8T0tJDSkSMpI3BVwQKbmrjzlkKtrQb7SFSih6wT4mo=; h=DKIM-Signature:DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Subject:To:From; b=vpqBCinZy6gSe3CIyYMLoOhimsyzaWyMlSH4IYD0P7baz45sTcv9DA5xSFgj4J3GiYKb0lK1JSsphdF7Nbn1pstpKNDG10HiQsa467TdkwahEqiaU3gnpILatz1OM2uriGTSI2EejN+He7UNf7JSnR2oQP1CUZ6UaJFfpXknNJk= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org EB1573858D26 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1733256324; bh=g8T0tJDSkSMpI3BVwQKbmrjzlkKtrQb7SFSih6wT4mo=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=NQ/dHLxpFq8ea1K+mNQkMuBBsAnSZ3/+7/QPHsGWmhA5srSz7wKKdxIzpMAqLvFdH DU9mNYKprqAT9EX4mOSEZQNezJ/SkXtuHyR8rNq1dYRS0cowWP5igR9tQgGmwBcf/c 9t2/wxRDsW0cwTskgN5kjkbPcJo+MS+XV9zNqmo8= Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 74DA61E0C0; Tue, 3 Dec 2024 15:05:24 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1733256323; bh=g8T0tJDSkSMpI3BVwQKbmrjzlkKtrQb7SFSih6wT4mo=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=LcX2gvxzapKNU6kZvz4qftO4i5FY3W2H2Xknwg65Lk6eT4cBJAzyqRYBmS0XIy7zg zM3jpaVGSNvwFey5wK0yKTNz9qilyd7OX/gxH+nhWXbx08h3X3BpB7cSaltGUtxbkY 3F7ZomBfYwmJAv8qy5imX13nJSWsxOFNd/2f9h10= Received: from [10.0.0.11] (modemcable238.237-201-24.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.237.238]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AFA8C1E05C; Tue, 3 Dec 2024 15:05:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 15:05:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: restore nullptr check in compunit_symtab::find_call_site To: Tom Tromey Cc: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20241203155223.10203-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <87ser4mzbr.fsf@tromey.com> <8cf13692-d876-43d1-bdf1-08cf4429d177@simark.ca> <875xo0mu1m.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: <875xo0mu1m.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org On 2024-12-03 14:43, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi writes: > >>> On the one hand, obstacks are nice since they reduce free overhead. >>> But on the other hand, they mean we can't use destructors... and for >>> this case, I think there normally aren't "too many" symtabs, so it's >>> probably fine to make the change. > > Simon> We can still use destructors, we might just need to call it manually. > > Yeah, that just doesn't seem significantly better to me. It is more > like a spelling change. I don't think it's just a spelling change, because a destructor would invoke the destructor of fields. So I think that if we started invoking ~compunit_symtab() manually (instead of compunit_symtab::finalize()), we could start using non-trivially-destructible stuff directly as fields of compunit_symtab. In other words, m_call_site_htab wouldn't have to be a pointer anymore. Simon