From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6013 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2003 16:48:33 -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 6005 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2003 16:48:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (216.101.126.244) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 2003 16:48:32 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id 5CB09C12E; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:48:32 -0700 (PDT) To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] Per-objfile data mechanism References: <200307131717.h6DHH425098569@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <20030715161729.GA32437@nevyn.them.org> From: David Carlton Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:48:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030715161729.GA32437@nevyn.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:17:29 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00292.txt.bz2 On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:17:29 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > The concept is nice, but I share David's concern. I'm not sure what my concern is; I'm just curious. :-) I guess my inchoate attitude (as an interested observer who has a patch waiting for approval that adds per-objfile data) is that I don't mind at all adding new data to every objfile: there just aren't enough of them to worry about. The advantage of doing that as a member is that its existence is right there in objfiles.h for anybody to look at. The advantage of Mark's mechanism is that, if the data is only used by one file, then you don't have to clutter objfiles.h with it. I was also going to write, based on a cursory misreading of Mark's patch, that it simplified memory management in some circumstances, but now that I look at it more closely, I think I just misread the patch. (I may still be misreading the patch; my head is spinning with other things.) Would it be possible/beneficial to modify the mechanism to provide an optional per-datum cleanup function as well? David Carlton carlton@kealia.com