From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2176 invoked by alias); 17 Sep 2002 18:34:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2164 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2002 18:34:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Sep 2002 18:34:00 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g8HIXwP12337; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:33:58 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] convert blocks to dictionaries, phase 1, main part References: <20020917143553.GA28408@nevyn.them.org> <20020917174928.GA23058@nevyn.them.org> From: David Carlton Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:34:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20020917174928.GA23058@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00347.txt.bz2 On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:49:28 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 10:43:42AM -0700, David Carlton wrote: >> Is it okay to put up an RFA after I've switched over just blocks, >> or do you want me to wait until after I've switched over global >> symbols as well? > Basically, at any point when you don't have a lot of temporary gunk. Great; I'll get rid of all the DICT_TEMP gunk, finish converting blocks over, and send out a new RFA. That won't take a separate branch. And maybe before doing that I'll send out an RFA that gets rid of BLOCK_SHOULD_SORT. > How about a branch which require approval just like the mainline for > large patches, although giving David a little more freedom to play > around. Then, we'd allow large merges from the branch back to the > trunk when they were ready and tested - larger patches than we'd > normally accept all at once, because they'd already been approved. >From my point of view, having a separate branch could be quite useful when getting to the global symbols, and what you propose could be a reasonable mechanism. For one thing, it seems plausible to me that it might take some amount of playing around with implementation methods before settling on one that works well, so a branch is a natural place for that sort of playing around to occur. And, for another thing, having it be in a branch increases the chances that people other than me can be shanghaied into working on this. (I can work on converting appropriate code to using struct dictionaries, you can play around with getting the interface to symbol lookups just right, and if we're lucky Daniel Berlin can pop by every once in a while saying that he took a break over the weekend from law school stuff to tear out all of the psymtab->symtab translation and replace it with a new, improved mechanism, or something like that.) So I'm not resistant to branches generally. Incidentally, I really should send out some e-mail that talks about what I think the eventual interface to symbol lookups should be. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu