From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19817 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2004 00:24:24 -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 19808 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2004 00:24:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Aug 2004 00:24:23 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7A0ONe1013849 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 20:24:23 -0400 Received: from zenia.home.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i7A0OLa11300; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 20:24:21 -0400 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/dwarf/doc] Inter-compilation-unit reference support for partial DIEs References: <20040420170855.GA31548@nevyn.them.org> <20040617034201.GD23443@nevyn.them.org> <20040715184431.GA25807@nevyn.them.org> <20040804230536.GA30848@nevyn.them.org> <20040805180341.GB9011@nevyn.them.org> <20040807220115.GA25874@nevyn.them.org> <20040808181741.GB26005@nevyn.them.org> <20040808193053.GA27352@nevyn.them.org> From: Jim Blandy Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:24:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20040808193053.GA27352@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00347.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz 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.