From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31274 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2004 22:41:11 -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 31263 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2004 22:41:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2004 22:41:09 -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 i31Mf8jj006581 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2004 17:41:08 -0500 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 i31Mf6j16986; Thu, 1 Apr 2004 17:41:07 -0500 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/dwarf] Use objfile_data mechanism for per-objfile data References: <20040401171557.GA17948@nevyn.them.org> <20040401210608.GA9848@nevyn.them.org> <20040401220136.GA30848@nevyn.them.org> From: Jim Blandy Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20040401220136.GA30848@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: 2004-04/txt/msg00045.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > - 'dwarf2_objfile_data_key' for the 'struct objfile_data', and > - 'struct dwarf2_per_objfile' for the struct > - 'dwarf2_per_objfile' for the global > > Sound good? Okay. > > > > The lower-case implicit-parameter macros bug me. But I assume they're > > > > going away soon, and upper-casing them would make the patch huge, > > > > right? > > > > > > I didn't have a particular plan in either direction. Doing either > > > would be an easy follow-on. Replacing them with their expansions would > > > be noisy indentation-wise, but otherwise trivial - that may be best. > > > > I'd be happier with replacing them with their expansions. We could > > drop the 'dwarf_' prefixes on the member names, too. > > OK. Mind if I do this later, i.e. in a few weeks? I'm polishing the > rest of the intercu patches for submission now. > > If you have a strong preference I can do it now instead. If they sit there for very long, I will have neglected my duties. But you've been working steadily on this for quite a while, so short of some disaster for you, I'm confident it'll get done. So if it would produce interference with your other patches, leave it for later.