From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22695 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2003 08:16:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 22677 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2003 08:16:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Nov 2003 08:16:23 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id F0C82D33A8; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 00:16:22 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 08:16:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: David Carlton Cc: Andrew Cagney , binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: A gdb+bfd string pool? Message-ID: <20031104081622.GB883@gnat.com> References: <3FA27C9B.1000702@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00023.txt.bz2 > Personally, I'd be against this unless we have reason to believe that > it's an important optimization. I don't like global data in general, > even if it's only global to one component of a program, and having > that data shared by both GDB and BFD makes me even more nervous. > (Singleton is not my favorite design pattern.) So it sets of warning > bells for general design reasons; our lack of const-correctness when > dealing with names makes me even more nervous. I have the exact same feeling. May I recommend that, should we decide to use one, we isolate it from GDB's code via a layer. So each module would use it's layer as if it was not shared. It will make the move back easier, in case it's ever needed. -- Joel