This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC/RFA] Per-objfile data mechanism
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:54:20 -0400
- Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] Per-objfile data mechanism
- References: <200307131717.h6DHH425098569@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <20030715161729.GA32437@nevyn.them.org> <yf24r1nn3c0.fsf@hawaii.kealia.com> <200308101903.h7AJ32Bx079942@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org>
On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 09:03:02PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> From: David Carlton <carlton@kealia.com>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:48:31 -0700
>
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:17:29 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz
> <drow@mvista.com> said:
>
> > The concept is nice, but I share David's concern.
>
> 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?
>
> I quite deliberately left per-datum initializers and destructors out
> to encourage the use of the per-objfile obstacks. But they can always
> be added if they're needed.
>
> So what's the final verdict. Should my patch go in, or do people have
> concrete ideas about necessary improvements or alternative
> implementations?
As far as I'm concerned, it should go in.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer