Re: [rfa/dwarf/doc] Inter-compilation-unit reference support for partial DIEs

[Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 02:17:41PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 11:39:53PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > > Well, you understand that I'm trying to get at really has nothing to
> > > do with correctness, or performance, or anything like that.  I want
> > > the structures to look more "normal".  I don't see that they task
> > > they're carrying out is so strange that they shouldn't match the
> > > idioms everyone's got wired into their heads better, to maximize the
> > > chances that they get the big picture from a casual read.
> > > 
> > > How about putting the 'read_in' links all in the always-present
> > > structs?  That way the linked list looks more like a linked list: it
> > > actually points to an instance of the same structure that contains it.
> > > And we can blow four bytes per CU.  Then, if we need it, put a link in
> > > the structure for read-in CU's back to the always-present structs.
> > 
> > You need to make this decision one way or another, because the current
> > idiom makes perfect sense to me, so the change would gain me no clarity
> > at the expense of an extra pointer.  If you'd like me to make that
> > change, I'll do it.
> > 
> > The object is a struct dwarf2_per_cu_data.  Each is either in the
> > read-in or not-read-in state; if it is in the read-in state there is a
> > dwarf2_cu which is owned by this object, containing additional state
> > variables.  One of the additional state variables is the pointer to the
> > next item in the list of read-in objects.
> 
> That didn't come out very well.  Let me try again.

:)

> It sounds like you would consider it clearer to have the read_in
> pointer in the dwarf2_per_cu_data structure, instead of in the
> dwarf2_cu structure that it points to.  Shall I make that change?

I think the best way to tell whether a revision is a matter of
personal taste or a genuine improvement in clarity is to see whether
other developers agree that the revision is an improvement; a
significant improvement is recognizable as such.  Don't worry about
the link.