From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 657 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2010 22:56:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 648 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jun 2010 22:56:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:56:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5FMuksG031641 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:56:46 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5FMujdf000357; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:56:46 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5FMuiFv006384; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:56:45 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 53D8E3792D0; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:56:44 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: sami wagiaalla Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Change cplus_specific to an alocated struct References: <4BFD4230.3030600@redhat.com> <4C167FCA.7030300@redhat.com> Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:56:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4C167FCA.7030300@redhat.com> (sami wagiaalla's message of "Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:15:22 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg00358.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Sami" == sami wagiaalla writes: Tom> It seems to me that soon we're going to want to add a bunch of Tom> C++-specific fields, and we don't want to unnecessarily penalize the Tom> other languages with our baggage. Sami> I wasn't really planing one :D, but what do you think of this: Sami> We leave the current struct as is and rename cplus_specific to Sami> mangled_lang_specific (or just mangled_lang). And the the union we add Sami> a cplus_specific that managed as things are in this patch, and is Sami> actually cplus_specific ? That sounds ok to me. Sami> I think that is just a wrong use of lazy here. I meant to say Sami> initialize it /if/ it is going to be used rather than when... Sami> symbol_init_cplus_specific is called from symbol_set_names where the Sami> bcache is updated. Aha, thanks. Tom