Re: [RFC/RFA] add struct parse_context to all command functions

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes:

Joel> I like the idea as well. Just one question: Why did you elect to
Joel> pass the structure as a pointer, rather than the structure
Joel> itself?

To avoid copying.  Most users just reference fields from the
structure, or pass it through unmodified.  So, this is more efficient
in the common cases.

I would have looked at passing by value if the structure were smaller.
As it is, on my machine it is 68 bytes -- that seems kind of big.

Joel> I wonder if some of the complexity in terms of who owns the
Joel> data, making a copy, etc, could be removed if we passed the
Joel> structure itself. In terms of performance, it shouldn't be a
Joel> problem, as I expect large structs to be passed by reference
Joel> anyway.

I think they have to be copied regardless, though, to preserve
pass-by-value semantics.


In this particular case, ownership is not an issue.  These structures
are only ever stack-allocated.  Passing pointers to const makes it
clear that these are not mutable.

Stack allocation does make the code a bit uglier, since when we do
want to make a copy we have to give the new object a name.  That is
one advantage of pass-by-value.


struct parse_context might be a bit different depending on what you
put in it.  For example, I was thinking that lexptr should probably
not be a global.  However, if we put it in parse_context, then the
context can't be const.  (Maybe we want two different structs though
-- one immutable and one to hold state for a given parse.)

Tom