From: "Jan Vraný via Gdb" <gdb@sourceware.org>
To: "tom@tromey.com" <tom@tromey.com>
Cc: "gdb@sourceware.org" <gdb@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: Question about struct type* ownership
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 11:02:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9dcf0636f18291190184027b97e6235bb49800e1.camel@labware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8734hsx207.fsf@tromey.com>
On Wed, 2025-01-08 at 17:30 -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Jan> Let's say I'd like to create new function type "int(struct s)",
> where
> Jan> type "int" is arch-owned and "struct s" is objfile-owned. Am I
> correct
> Jan> thinking that resulting function type should be objfile-owned?
>
> Yes, in particular by the same objfile that owns "struct s".
>
> Jan> Generally speaking, if composing new type out of other types, if
> at
> Jan> least one of the types is objfile-owned then the new type must
> by
> Jan> also objfile-owned (by that very objfile), right?
>
> Yes.
>
> Jan> Looking at lookup_function_type_with_arguments, it allocated new
> Jan> function type is always "owned" by whoever "owns" the return
> type
> Jan> (first param to lookup_function_type_with_arguments). So if I'm
> correct
> Jan> about the above, I'd have to extend
> lookup_function_type_with_arguments
> Jan> to pass down type allocator (like in create_array_type). Or is
> there
> Jan> a better way?
>
> It's new territory, so just whatever looks reasonably clean. I think
> in
> the past this wasn't an issue because essentially only symbol readers
> made types.
OK, I'll refactor the code a bit then. Thanks!
>
> Jan> Also, when experimenting with the example above, I realized
> that
> Jan> the arch-owner of "int" struct type* is a different struct
> gdbarch *
> Jan> then gdbarch associated with objfile-owner of "struct s" type
> Jan> (i mean, pointer values are different).
> Jan> While I would think it is okay to compose new type from types
> owned by
> Jan> two distinct gdbarchs from lifecycle POV, it still puzzles me
> why
> Jan> there are two different gdbarch instances (both are i386:x86-
> 64)?
>
> Offhand I don't know but there are a lot of ways a gdbarch can be
> initialized. Maybe they have different registers available.
OK, so I'll assume this is normal. Thanks!
Jan
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-09 11:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-08 13:32 Jan Vraný via Gdb
2025-01-09 0:30 ` Tom Tromey
2025-01-09 11:02 ` Jan Vraný via Gdb [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9dcf0636f18291190184027b97e6235bb49800e1.camel@labware.com \
--to=gdb@sourceware.org \
--cc=Jan.Vrany@labware.com \
--cc=tom@tromey.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox